Kluwer Benelux Merken Congres College Hotel 7 april

Kluwer Benelux Merken Congres College Hotel, 7 april 2016 Merk, werk, model en octrooi Prof. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague

Contents • The problem • Available balancing tools – Exclusion from protection – Requirement of distinctive character – Scope of protection • Problem solved?

The problem

Copyright law: an inspiration system public domain of cultural expression (cultural heritage)

Trademark law: a transparency system public domain of distinctive signs (source identifiers)

Conflict between the protection systems static trademark protection vs. cyclic innovation in copyright

Risks • drying-out of sources of inspiration • monopolisation of building blocks of new creations = impediment of the cultural inspiration cycle

Balancing tools

Available balancing tools • exclusion of signs • acceptance on certain conditions • scope of protection signs excluded from protection with limited scope requirement of distinctiveness as a gatekeeper

Exclusion of Signs

Exclusion of functional signs. . . signs consisting of a shape or another characteristic • resulting from the nature of the goods themselves • necessary to obtain a technical result • giving substantial value to the goods (amended Art. 4(1)(e) TMD)

Example technical subject matter

CJEU, 18 June 2002, case C-299/99, Philips/Remington ‘… to prevent trade mark protection from granting its proprietor a monopoly on technical solutions or functional characteristics of a product which a user is likely to seek in the products of competitors. ’ (para. 78) • no monopolisation of decisive product features • safeguarding freedom of competition

CJEU, 18 June 2002, case C-299/99, Philips/Remington ‘In refusing registration of such signs, Article 3(1)(e), second indent, of the Directive reflects the legitimate aim of not allowing individuals to use registration of a mark in order to acquire or perpetuate exclusive rights relating to technical solutions. ’ (para. 82) • no artifical extension of the term of patent protection

Example technical solutions • patent protection expired • reappropriation via trademark law?

CJEU, 14 September 2010, case C-48/09 P, Lego/OHIM (Mega Brands) ‘…the prohibition on registration as a trade mark of any sign consisting of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result ensures that undertakings may not use trade mark law in order to perpetuate, indefinitely, exclusive rights relating to technical solutions. ’ (para. 45) • Lego brick qualified as functional • shape alternatives not decisive (para. 55)

CJEU, 14 September 2010, case C-48/09 P, Lego/OHIM (Mega Brands) • result: technical know-how remains free after patent expiry • costs: risk of confusion/unfair free riding? ‘In the present case, it has not been disputed that the shape of the Lego brick has become distinctive in consequence of the use which has been made of it and is therefore a sign capable of distinguishing the appellant’s goods from others which have another origin. ’ (para. 40)

Keeping technical solutions free culture copyright law technology patent law commerce trademark law

Example industrial design

Benelux Court of Justice, NJ 1989, 834, Burberrys I exclusion of substantial value shapes relevant: irrelevant: value due to beauty or attractiveness value due to trademark recognition

CJEU, 20 September 2007, case C-371/06, Benetton/G-Star ‘…the shape of a product which gives substantial value to that product cannot constitute a trade mark […] where, prior to the application for registration, it acquired attractiveness as a result of its recognition as a distinctive sign following advertising campaigns presenting the specific characteristics of the product in question. ’ (para. 28) • traditional Benelux distinction overruled?

CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke

CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke rationales underlying shape exclusions competition: term extension: no monopoly on essential product characteristics no evergreening of rights with limited period of protection

CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke • need to safeguard competition in case of shape resulting from nature of the goods • not only when indispensable (natural and regulated products) but also when inherent to the generic function ‘…that shapes with essential characteristics which are inherent to the generic function or functions of such goods must, in principle, also be denied registration. ’ (para. 25)

CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke • no artificial extension of limited protection in the case of substantial value shapes • catalogue of essential characteristics – nature of the category of goods concerned – artistic value of the shape in question – dissimilarity from other shapes on the market – substantial price difference – promotion strategy accentuating aesthetic characteristics (para. 35)

Same need to keep cultural signs free? culture copyright law technology patent law commerce trademark law

Example literary and artistic works • copyright protection limited in time • term extension via trademark law? • accumulation of rights possible in many cases

Literary and artistic works difference justified because of substitutability?

Pierre Bourdieu

Room for preventing overlap. . . signs consisting of a shape or another characteristic • resulting from the nature of the goods themselves • necessary to obtain a technical result • giving substantial value to the goods (amended Art. 4(1)(e) TMD)

STELLINGEN • werken zouden net zoals modellen en octrooien uitgesloten moeten zijn van merkenrechtelijke bescherming • zelfs een ruime toepassing van het nieuwe artikel 4 lid 1 sub e MRL is echter niet voldoende om dit resultaat te bereiken • uitsluiting van functionele kenmerken omvat namelijk niet het gebruik als label

Lack of distinctiveness (conditional acceptance)

Attempts to register cultural heritage signs

Risk of free riding positive image of cultural symbols

Federal Patent Court of Germany, 25 November 1997, ‘Mona Lisa’ • The Mona Lisa is not distinctive. • The Mona Lisa has become customary in trade practices. • But there is no conflict with morality or public order.

Guernica for weapons? • distinctive? • customary in trade practices?

Solveig’s song for beer? • distinctive? • customary in trade practices?

CJEU, C-283/01, Shield Mark/Kist ‘I find it more difficult to accept […] that a creation of the mind, which forms part of the universal cultural heritage, should be appropriated indefinitely by a person to be used on the market in order to distinguish the goods he produces or the services he provides with an exclusivity which not even its author's estate enjoys. ’ (Opinion A-G Colomer, 3 April 2003, para. 52)

STELLINGEN • inburgering zou uitgesloten moeten zijn in het geval van culturele tekens • anders wordt het merkenrecht een zelfbedieningsmechanisme: de industrie kan rechten verwerven op basis van investeringen in reclame • dus: culturele uitsluitingsgronden noodzakelijk

Limited scope of trademark rights

Limited scope of trademark protection • principle of specialty (protection relating to specific goods/services) • notion of trademark use – mere references to the trademark sufficient? – cultural, political, religious, educational context • but enhanced protection of well-known marks – may cover all kinds of goods and services – proof of confusion not necessarily required

Louis Vuitton v. Nadia Plesner: Darfurnica (2010)

BGH, 3 February 2005, Lila Postkarte ‘It is calm above the tree tops/Somewhere a cow is bellowing/Moo. ’ (Rainer Maria Milka) • ornamental trademark use taking advantage of the distinctive character of the Milka mark • with due cause as it is justified by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of arts

Art. 14(1) TMD c) use of the trade mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services as those of the proprietor of that trade mark, in particular, where the use of the trade mark is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts.

STELLINGEN • bestaande mogelijkheden om te ver gaande bescherming te voorkomen zijn niet voldoende • ondanks de beperkingen van het merkenrecht kan een afschrikwekkend effect niet worden uitgesloten

The end. Thank you! contact: m. r. f. senftleben@vu. nl