1.  law firm around the world  law firm around the world Some Recent Developments in EU and UK Trade Mark Law 16 th April 2004, IPD Hong Kong David Llewelyn Visiting Professor, King’s College London; Partner, White & Case (London); Executive Chairman, Ipr-X (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd

2. Appellate System OHIM Board of Appeal Court of First Instance (“CFI”) European Court of Justice (“ECJ”)

3. Capable of Being a Trade Mark? “Sound Marks” “Smell Marks” “Colour Marks”

4. Yes… (1) If Capable of Being Graphically Represented… and ….but how can a smell be ‘graphically represented’?

5. (2) If Capable of Denoting Trade Origin Can you recognise the manufacturer solely from the shade of purple??

6. Non Distinctive - Shape Marks 3-D SHAPE MARKS REJECTED AXION

7. Shape Marks SOCIÉTÉ DE PRODUITS NESTLÉ S.A. v. UNILEVER PLC (High Court – U.K.) PRODUCT RECOGNITION ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT

8. Colour Marks KWS SAAT AG v. OHIM (CFI) VIKING-UMWELTTECHNIK GMBH v. OHIM (CFI)

9. Colour Marks LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands) ANDREAS STIHL AG v. OHIM (CFI)

10. Colour Marks… conclusion Colour marks will only be registered where there is evidence of prior use – LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. CONSUMER EDUCATION

11. Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness THE INITIAL APPROACH ‘BABY-DRY’ (CFI) ‘COMPANYLINE’ (CFI)

12. Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH ‘VITALITE’ (CFI) ‘DOUBLEMINT’ (CFI) ‘EASYBANK’ (CFI)

13. Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness A SHIFT IN THE LAW ‘BABY-DRY’ ECJ DECISION

14. Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness PROVISIONALLY ACCEPTED AFTER ‘BABY DRY’ (ECJ) ‘NEW BORN BABY’ (CFI) ‘ULTRAPLUS’ (CFI) The UltraPlus range

15. But now we have DOUBLEMINT ‘designates characteristics’ ‘suggestive of characteristics’ …. where do you draw the line? ECJ – ‘DOUBLEMINT’  X

16. ECJ Decision in OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Company “A sign must therefore be refused registration under [Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation no. 40/94] if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.”

17. ECJ Decision in OHIM –v- Wm Wrigley Jr Company From DOUBLEMINT it would appear that BABY DRY has been restricted: A mark may now be devoid of distinctive character even where there is one purely descriptive meaning amongst other non- descriptive ones.

18. Need to Keep Free… ‘WINDSURFING CHIEMSEE’ (ECJ reference from Germany) GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN

19. Need to Keep Free…. LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands) WIDER APPLICATION ‘LINDE’ (ECJ Reference from Germany)

20. Customary Usage ECJ – Art. 7(1)(d) only excludes words customarily used to designate goods or services in question MERZ & KRELL GMBH (ECJ reference from Germany) ALCON v. OHIM (CFI)

21. Shape Marks 2-D REPRESENTATION OF A 3-D SHAPE PHILIPS v. REMINGTON (ECJ reference from the U.K.)

22. Extension of Protection for Marks With a ‘Reputation’ DAVIDOFF & CIE SA & ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v. GOFKID LTD. (ECJ reference from Germany) ADIDAS SALOMON A.G. & ADIDAS BENELUX B.V. v. FITNESSWORLD TRADING LTD. (ECJ – Opinion of A.G. Jacobs)

23. When Is a Trade Mark Not a Trade Mark?? ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB v. REED (ECJ reference from the U.K.)

24. Revocation for Non-Use ‘HIWATT’ (CFI) LABORATORIES RTB SL v. OHIM (CFI) ANSUL B.V. v. AJAX BRANDBEVEILIGING B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands)