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

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

3. The problem

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

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

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

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

8. Balancing tools

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

10. Exclusion of Signs

11. 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)

12. Example technical subject matter

13. 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

14. 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

15. Example technical solutions
patent protection expired
reappropriation via trademark law?

16. 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)

17. 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)

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

19. Example industrial design

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

21. 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?

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

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

24. 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)

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)

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

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

28. Literary and artistic works
difference justified because of substitutability?

29. Pierre Bourdieu

30. 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)

31. 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

32. Lack of distinctiveness (conditional acceptance)

33. Attempts to register cultural heritage signs

34. positive image of cultural symbols
Risk of free riding
positive image of cultural symbols

35. 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.

36. Guernica for weapons?
distinctive?
customary in trade practices?

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

38. 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)

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

40. Limited scope of trademark rights

41. 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
Agreement and Protocol are independent, parallel treaties. A state may be
party to either or both. An IGO may be party to the Protocol.

42. Louis Vuitton v. Nadia Plesner
Plesner: Darfurnica (2010)

43. 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

44. 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.

45. 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

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