document on trademark-RAJAT MATHUR by rajatmathurlse1

VIEWS: 1,222 PAGES: 27

									London School of Economics

Dr Dev Gangjee ( TRADE MARK LAW – LL4D1 Michaelmas 2007

Course Outline and Syllabus for Seminars

Overview: Trade mark law is concerned with the legal regulation of signs, in particular signs which distinguish between various goods or services in the marketplace. It also bestows largesse upon a not ungrateful legal profession. In terms of litigation statistics trade marks are the most contested species of Intellectual Property, given the many possible uses of signs by competitors or even the general public. This course focuses on how the law identifies proprietary interests, associated rights and exceptions to these rights in such situations. The aim of this course is to give you a thorough grasp of the black letter law in the UK and EU, introduce you to the competing interests in conflict situations and critically consider the justifications for the present architecture of the law when set in its broader context. At the end of this course you will have a principled approach to trade marks and broader issues in intellectual property discourse, which is applicable to any jurisdiction. The UK/EU framework is viewed as an evolving balancing act – the questions we ask are (a) whether the balance at present is appropriate? and (b) whether emerging trends are reassuring or alarming? To give you a flavour of what‟s in store          

Can a toy car manufacturer use the trade mark for a full sized car (e.g. Ferrari) on an exact scale model? Should the music group Aqua be permitted to sing a song about „Barbie‟ without authorisation from Mattel? What sorts of property rights are associated with trade marks? What is the relationship between branding, advertising and trade mark law? Can resources from other bodies of scholarship such as Economics, Semiotics, Cultural Studies and Cognitive Psychology illuminate certain puzzles in this area? Can you register the colour orange? In fact, should you be able to register scents, tastes, textures, sounds, holograms and sports moves as trade marks? How did a controversial sign like FCUK get on to the trade mark register in the first place? Why does someone own the domain name to the generic sounding or descriptive or Who regulates the use of „Champagne‟? To what extent can a celebrity protect her personality „brand‟ in the UK? What is the relationship between trade mark law and the broader law of unfair competition?

Approach: The course will be covered in a series of weekly 2 hour seminars (10am-12pm, Thursdays, Room G212). The seminar slides will be put up on LL4D1 at Moodle <> the evening before. As regards preparation: (a) You are required to read the relevant parts of Bently & Sherman, which is the prescribed text for the course. Cornish is a useful supplement. For weekly material, the starred (*) items are to be given priority. (b) In the first term, the emphasis will be on doctrinal analysis and case law but in the second term, where we discuss puzzle areas and controversial issues, the readings will be more theoretical and comparative. (c) Most relevant cases are available online via BAILII, Westlaw and Lexis. I will supply the remainder and all the articles online on Moodle. [Readings will be updated over the year as new material (esp. judgments) surface]

Core Legislation and Readings:

Texts: 1. L Bently & B Sherman Intellectual Property Law 2nd edn (OUP Oxford 2004) [B&S] 2. WR Cornish and D Llewelyn Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade marks and Allied Rights 6th edn (Sweet & Maxwell, London 2007) [Cornish]

Additionally: 1. D Kitchin et al (eds) Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names 14th edn (Sweet & Maxwell London 2005) [Kerly; Available on Westlaw] The definitive treatise on UK trade mark law is Kerly. The electronic version is freely available on Westlaw - (i) Click Directory at the centre top; (ii) enter as a database identifier in the text box on the left UKIP-KERLY; (iii) Then click Table of Contents on the upper right hand side of the screen. For clarifications or reading more deeply in an area, this is the resource. 2. A Firth et al Trade Marks: Law and Practice 2nd edn (Jordans, Bristol 2005) 3. S Maniatis Trade Marks in Europe: A Practical Jurisprudence (Sweet & Maxwell, London 2006) 4. L Bently, J Davis, J Ginsburg (eds) Trade Marks & Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique (CUP, Cambridge 2008) 5. G Dinwoodie & M Janis (eds) Trade Mark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2008)

Statutes and Legislation: Blackstone‟s Intellectual Property Statutes will have all the required legislation. What‟s essential is 1. UK Trade Marks Act 1994 („TMA‟)

Also available as an unofficial yet updated PDF at: 2. Directive 89/104/EEC (1988) on the Approximation of the Laws of Member States relating to Trade Marks („Harmonization Directive‟) 3. Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark („CTM Regulation‟) Both these are available at: 4. Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 Concerning Misleading and Comparative Advertising (esp. Art 4) General Resources (Just so that you know what‟s out there): (Specific UK/EU Trade Mark Reports) RPC – Reports of Patent Cases FSR – Fleet Street Reports ETMR – European Trade Mark Reports

(Practitioner Reviews) TMR – Trade Mark Reporter (Available on the Lexis and Hein Online electronic databases) TMW – Trade Mark World MIP – Managing Intellectual Property (Free news update at JIPLP – Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

(Other general UK/EU IP Journals) EIPR – European Intellectual Property Review IPQ – Intellectual Property Quarterly IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Westlaw Journal Search (combined UK & US database: JLR, UK-JLR)

Electronic Resources: Important: We cover a lot of European Court of Justice (ECJ) & Court of First Instance (CFI) decisions; freely available via the search form at

Alternatively, ECJ and CFI Trade Mark decisions available from OHIM (useful because the PDF document often includes an image of the contested sign)

Web Sites 1. UK Patent Office: Registry Manual of TM Practise Decisions 2. Community OHIM for the CTM: 3. US Patent and Trademark Office: 4. International Trademark Association: 5. WIPO: 6. British Library TM Resources:

Blogs (Again very interesting, accessible and good for tracking new developments): A. (EU and UK Law – directly relevant) IPKat B. (US Law – comparative insights) The Trademark Blog TTAB Blog The Shape Blog



Seminar 1: Introduction and Key Issues

Issues: i. What are trade marks? ii. The historical development of trade mark law – common law and registered marks iii. The purpose of modern trademarks law – justifications and interests iv. The systems of trademark protection – national, regional, international; registered and unregistered

Associated reading: This reading material is introduced here but will be discussed in the TM Theory seminar in Lent Term. The idea is to give you historical and theoretical background readings over the course of the first term and holidays, so that you are well prepared for more in depth discussions in Lent. B&S Ch 31 L Bently „Historical Aspects of the Development of the British Law of Trade Marks‟ (draft paper – available online on Moodle) WIPO Trademark Comic: Parody of WIPO Trademark Comic: WM Landes and RA Posner „The Economics of Trademark Law‟ (1988) 78 TMR 267 FI Schechter „The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection‟ (1926-27) 40 Harvard Law Review 813 T Drescher „The Transformation and Evolution of Trademarks: From Signals to Symbols to Myth‟ (1992) 82 TMR 301


Seminars 2 & 3: Trade Mark Registration (a) Underlying Principles and Institutional Actors (b) The Definition of a Registrable Trade Mark NB: Seminar 2 will focus on „signs‟ and „graphical representation‟ while Seminar 3 will focus on „distinctiveness‟

Issues: i. The UK and EU Registration systems; introduction to international registration systems

ii. The process of registration; registration for specific goods and services iii. Underlying Principles: A sign; „capable of distinguishing‟; „capable of being represented graphically‟ – detailed analysis of each of these requirements iv. The policy arguments underlying these apparently technical requirements

Required Reading: * B&S Chs 35 & 36 Kerly Ch 2 [Available on Westlaw] * Trade Marks Act 1994 Sections 1, and 3-8 C Gielen "Harmonisation of Trade Mark Law in Europe" [1992] EIPR 262 * R Burrell and M Handler „Making Sense of Trade Mark Law‟ [2003] 4 IPQ 388 * I Simon „How Does Essential Function Drive European Trade Mark Law?‟ [2005] 36 IIC 401 B Elias „Do Scents Signify Source? An Argument against Trademark Protection for Fragrances‟ (1992) 82 TMR 475. * M Handler „The Distinctive Problem of European Trade Mark Law‟ [2005] EIPR 306 * The UK Trademarks Registry Works Manual (the TM examiner‟s point of reference). In particular, see Ch 3 available at – (Read only Section 7 from pages 22 to 25 of the PDF to get an overview) WIPO Standing Committee (Sessions 16-19) Documents at: WIPO „New Types of Marks‟ (SCT/16/2) WIPO „Methods of Representation and Description of New Types of Marks‟ (SCT/17/2) WIPO „Relation of Established Trade Mark Principles to New Types of Marks‟ (SCT/17/3) WIPO „Non-Traditional Marks - Key Learnings‟ (SCT/18/2) WIPO „Representation and Description of Non-Traditional Marks. Possible Areas of Convergence‟ (SCT/19/2)

NB: All the following cases should be treated as [*]. They concern non-conventional signs which test the limits of the legal definition of a trade mark.

- General definition Libertel (C-104/01) [2003] E.C.R. I-3793; [2004] F.S.R. 4

- Signs Heidelberger Bauchemie (C-49/02) [2004] ETMR 99 (ECJ) (colour) (Followed in recent 2007 BoA decisions to show that broad claims for colours per se are not „signs‟)

Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (C-321/03) 14 Sept 2006 (AG‟s opinion) & 25 Jan 2007 (ECJ) [2007] ETMR 34 (concept for a transparent vacuum cleaner bin) UK TM Registry‟s Practise Amendment Notice PAN 7/07 on signs at

- Graphical representation Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (ECJ, Case C-273/00) [2003] RPC 38 (Does a chemical formula for a scent count?) Eli Lilly & Co's Community Trade Mark Application [2004] ETMR 4 Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist (C-283/01) [2004] RPC 315 (ECJ) Libertel (C-104/01) [2003] E.C.R. I-3793; [2004] F.S.R. 4 (colour) UK Practice Amendment Notice on Colour at: (1) (2) For a decision applying Heidelberger standards to abstract representations of colours: Mars Inc.’s Application for Pink & White OHIM Second Board of Appeal, 13 December 2006 (R 1004/2006-2)

- Capacity to distinguish R. v. “Cycling IS…” Trade Mark Applications [2002] 37 RPC 729

- Devoid of Distinctiveness SAT.1 Satellitenfernsehen GmbH v OHIM (C-329/02 P) [2005] E.T.M.R. 20. OHIM v Celltech (C-273/05 P) 19 April 2007 (ECJ)

- Descriptive Marks Windsurfing Chiemsee GmbH v Boots- und Walter Huber (C108/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [1999] ETMR 585 Procter & Gamble Co v OHIM (C-383/99 P) [2001] E.C.R. I-6251 („Baby Dry‟) OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Co (C-191/01 P) [2003] E.C.R. I-12447 („Doublemint‟) Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA (C-421/04) 9 Mar 2006 (ECJ) (Can a descriptive word in the language of one EU Member be registered in another member?) OHIM v Celltech (See above) (When is a combination „suggestive‟ and not directly descriptive?)

- Distinctiveness for Names Nichols Plc v Registrar of Trade Marks (C-404/02) [2005] RPC 12

- Distinctiveness for Slogans Nestlé v Mars (C-353/03) 7 July 2005 ECJ; [2006] FSR 2 (Kit Kat – „Have a Break‟ slogan) UK TM Registry‟s Practise Amendment Notice PAN 1/06 on slogans at:

- Distinctiveness for Colours Libertel (see above) Philmac Pty Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks [2002] FCA 1551 (Federal Court of Australia)

- Distinctiveness for Sounds Shield Mark BV v Kist (t/a Memex) (C-283/01) [2003] ECR I-14313 Metro Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Lion Corp’s Application Case R-781/1999-4 (OHIM BoA) at Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc (TARZAN yell) (R 708/2006-4) 27 Oct 2007 OHIM 4th BoA

- Distinctiveness for Olfactory Marks Sieckmann (see above) Contrast this with: Vennootschap Onder Firma Senta Aromatic Marketing’s Application [1999] ETMR 429 (fresh cut grass) Eden Sarl v OHIM (T-305/04) [2006] ETMR 14 (strawberries on a large range of goods)

- Similar Reasoning for Tastes Eli Lilly & Co's Community Trade Mark Application [2004] ETMR 4 (gustatory mark for the taste of strawberries in pharmaceutical products) In re N. V. Organon (US TTAB Dec 2005)

Seminar 4: Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration (3D marks/shapes)

(a) Establishing distinctiveness for shapes (b) Specific policy exclusions for shapes

Required Reading:

* A Carboni „The Overlap between Registered Community Designs and Community Trade Marks‟ [2006] JIPLP 256 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 4th ed (Westlaw 2007) Ch 7 – Functionality §7.63 to §7:93 (For the US response to shape trade marks, as a comparator)

- Distinctiveness for 3D marks/shapes i. Should there be different standards for distinctiveness when it comes to 3D marks? ii. Is there a broader public interest to consider here? * Linde AG's Trade Mark Application (C-53/01) [2003] RPC 45 (fork lift trucks, torch, wrist watch) Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH v OHIM (C-173/04 P) [2006] ETMR 41 at 486 (convex pouches) Mag Instrument Inc v OHIM (C-136/02 P) [2005] ETMR 46 (torches) iii. Is mere departure from the norm sufficient? Contrast: Bongrain SA’s Trade Mark Application [2004] EWCA Civ 1690, [2005] RPC 14 Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (T-460/05) [2008] ETMR 46

- Consumer Perceptions of shapes * Nestle Waters France v OHIM (T-305/02) [2004] ETMR 41 (CFI) (water bottle) DiamlerChrysler v OHIM (T-128/01) [2003] ETMR 87 (CFI) (jeep grille) * Procter and Gamble v OHIM (T-241/05, T-262/05 to T-264/05, T-346/05, T-347/05, T-29/06 to T-31/06) 23 May 2007, CFI (Square white washing tablets with floral design)

- How to measure Acquired Distinctiveness for shapes? * BIC SA v OHIM (T-262/04) 15 Dec 2005 (CFI) (3D disposable lighter)

- Policy grounds for refusal: Technical result, nature of the goods and adding value [ALL PHILIPS CASES SHOULD BE READ – make an investment in understanding the first two decisions; the rest flow very easily from there] * The travails of a 3-headed electric rotary shaver…the „208 mark‟ Began at the Patents Court (Ch D) with Jacob, J: Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1998] RPC 283 It then went to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [1999] RPC 809 The European law on shape marks required clarification; a reference was made and the AG‟s opinion followed: [2001] RPC 38

Then the ECJ‟s decision: Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475; [2003] RPC 2 Latest round on clover leaf – the „452 mark‟ Koninklijke Philips Electronics v Remington Consumer Products & Rayovac [2004] EWHC 2327 (Ch); [2005] FSR 17 Koninklijke Philips Electronics v Remington Consumer Products & Rayovac [2006] EWCA Civ 16 * Unilever PLC’s Trade Mark Applications [2003] RPC 35 (Vienetta ice cream shape – but subsequently settled so no legal resolution) * Dualit Limited's (Toaster Shapes) Trade Mark Applications [1999] RPC 304 (TM Registry) (When does a shape give substantial value to the goods?)

* Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International BV (C-371/06) 20 Sep 2007, ECJ (Factual distinctiveness doesn‟t displace the substantial value objection) --Recommended Further Reading - The Danger of a Permanent Monopoly in a Shape:The old UK law pre-1994: Coca-Cola Trade Marks [1986] RPC 421, 456-457 (HL) The continuing concern: Nation Fittings v Oystertec Plc [2005] SGHC 225 (Singapore) * Lego blocks cases Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc 2005 SCC 65 (Canada) See also Mega Bloks Inc v Kirkbi A/S Case R 856/2004-G 10 Jul 2006 (OHIM Grand Board of Appeal) Case on appeal as: Lego Juris v OHIM - Mega Brands (T-270/06) * Traffix Devices v Marketing Displays Inc (United States Supreme Court 20 Mar 2001) * Bergkelder Bpk v Vredendal Koöp Wynmakery (Supreme Court of South Africa; 9 Mar. 2006) [2006] SCA 8 (RSA) or

Seminar 5: Absolute Grounds cont. (3D marks/shapes cont. & Morality)

This seminar begins with controversies/case studies arising out of shape mark registration; work will be assigned in advance.

- Morality: Trade marks, speech and broader regulatory concerns Who is a right thinking member of the public? What is the difference between ordre public and morality? What is the difference between political correctness and morality? Is this regulatory activity within the purpose of TM law? (Compare with morality in patents)

Comparing the UK, EU and US approaches: UK TM Registry PAN on objectionable marks

UK Registry decisions can be searched for using the BL number (e.g. ) at: Ghazilian’s Application [2002] ETMR 631; UK TMO O/538/01 („Tiny Penis‟) Nov 01 UK TMO O/021/05 („Jesus‟) Jan 05 UK TMO O/330/05 („FCUK‟) Nov 05 UK TMO O/137/06 („FCUK‟) May 06 UK TMO O/182/05 („FOOK‟) Jun 05

US TTAB („Dykes on Bikes‟) Sep 06

Jebaraj Kenneth trading as Screw You (R 495/2005-G) Decision of the OHIM Grand Board of 6 July 2006.

Seminar 6: Relative grounds/Infringement by Likelihood of Confusion (s 10(1) and 10(2) of the TM Act 1994)

Issues: i. What are the types of tests under S 10 of the TMA 1994 (Tests are very similar to those for Relative Grounds for opposing registration; there is cross-fertilisation in the case law, so it will be considered here in detail) ii. Broad division into two types of prohibited conduct – infringement by confusion and infringement by dilution

Required Reading: * S 10 of the TMA 1994 [Essential to have this] * B&S Chs 38 & 40 J Philips „Strong Trade Marks and the Likelihood of Confusion in European Law‟ [2006] JIPLP 385 J Davis „Locating the Average Consumer‟ [2005] IPQ 183 *TR Lee „Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer‟ Available at SSRN: * P O'Byrne and B Allgrove „Post-sale confusion‟ [2007] JIPLP 315-323 * A Bartow „Likelihood of Confusion‟ (2004) 41 San. Diego L. Rev. 721

(i) Use of an identical mark for identical goods or services

* Reed Executive plc v. Reed Business Information Ltd. [2004] RPC 767 Compass Publishing BV v. Compass Logistics Ltd. [2004] RPC 809

(ii) Likelihood of Confusion because of the use of: a) an identical mark for similar goods/services b) a similar mark for identical goods/services c) a similar mark for similar goods/services

Wagamama Ltd. v. City Centre Restaurants [1995] FSR 713 * SABEL BV v Puma [1998] RPC 199 * Canon Kabushki Kaisha v MGM Inc [1999] FSR 333 * Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV [2000] FSR 77 The European Ltd v The Economist Newspapers Ltd. [1998] FSR 283 * Reed Executive plc v. Reed Business Information Ltd. (See (i) above)

- Neutralization Doctrine: Dissimilarities can cancel out similarities Claude Ruiz-Picasso v OHIM (C-361/04 P) [2006] E.C.R. I-643 (Picasso/Picaro) Mühlens GmbH v OHIM (C-206/04 P) [2006] ETMR 57 (ZIRH/SIR)

- Post-sale confusion Claude Ruiz-Picasso v. OHIM (See above). [Seems to reject the Arsenal approach by saying it can be used to confirm point of sale confusion, not substitute it]

- Infringement for non-traditional marks Lindt’s Golden Rabbit Trade Mark [2007] ETMR 30 (BGH 2006)

BP Amoco Plc v John Kelly [2002] FSR 5 (Is the use of the colour green an infringement?)

- The limits to presuming confusion Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc [2006] S.C.C. 22 (Canadian SC) Seminar 7: Interlude – Internet Domain Names – The distinct legal regime governing these disputes

Guest Lecturer: Andrew Murray Materials and outline to be announced on Moodle. Seminars 8 & 9: Infringement by ‘Dilution’ [NOTE the quotation marks]

(Seminar 8 will focus on the statutory provisions and case law and Seminar 9 on more on the theory, but these are to be treated as a single topic) i. The theoretical basis for dilution ii. Measuring the harm in dilution iii. Doctrinal analysis of the law developed under S 10(3): „Dilution’: Use of an identical/similar sign on (originally dissimilar) goods/services, where that mark has a reputation and the distinctive character or repute of the mark suffers detriment OR the latter takes unfair advantage of the former iv. The scope of s 10(3): Blurring and Tarnishment? What is the scope of „unfair advantage‟?

[*] Essential Readings: (1) FI Schechter „The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection‟ (Week 1 Reading) (2) JT McCarthy „Dilution of a Trademark: US and EU Law Compared‟ [2004] TMR 1163 Also available at (3) Ilanah Simon „Dilution in the United States and European Union (and Beyond) Compared‟ Parts I & II (2006) JIPLP 406 & 649

Theoretical Debates Pro-dilution T Anten „In Defense of Trademark Dilution Surveys: A Post-Moseley Proposal‟ (2005) 39 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 1 B Beebe „A Defense of the New Federal Trademark Anti-dilution Law‟ (2006) 16 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1143 JM Magid, AD Cox & DS Cox „Quantifying Brand Image: Empirical Evidence of Trademark Dilution‟ (2006) 43 American Business Law Journal 1 Jerre B Swann „An Interdisciplinary Approach to Brand Strength‟ (2006) TMR 943

M Richardson „Trade Marks and Language‟ (2004) 26 Sydney Law Review 193 JJ Bosland „The Culture of Trade Marks: An Alternative Cultural Theory Perspective‟ U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 121 (2005) Available at SSRN: Critical of dilution (see public folder) JE Moskin „Dilution or Delusion: The Rational Limits of Trademark Protection‟ [1993] TMR 122 C Haight Farley „Trademark Dilution Law: What‟s Behind the Rhetoric?‟ (2006) 16 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 101 C Long „Dilution‟ (2006) 106 Columbia L Rev 1029 JT McCarthy „Proving a Trademark Has Been Diluted: Theories or Facts?‟ (2004) 41 Houston L Rev 713

Pro and Critical debate Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Of The Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress First Session on H.R. 683 (17 Feb 2005)

Is Dilution actually about Misappropriation? D J Franklyn „Debunking Dilution Doctrine: Toward A Coherent Theory of the Anti-Free-Rider Principle in American Trademark Law‟ (2004-05) 56 Hastings L.J. 117

European Law - How to approach s 10(3) * Daimler Chrysler AG v. Javid Alavi [2001] 42 RPC 813 (MERC) (Pumfrey J‟s advice at [92])

- Reputation *** General Motors Corp. v. Yplon SA (C-375/97) [2000] RPC 572 Why a niche reputation is problematic: Aruze Corporation v Nacional Motor OHIM 2nd BoA, 3 July 2006 (R 334/2005-2) (DERBI v DERBY QUEEN – market for motorcycles) PAGO International (C-301/07) (Does a mark need to have a Reputation in the whole community or a substantial part in order to qualify for protection?)

- Does dilution apply only for dissimilar goods and services? Apparently not! * Zino Davidoff SA v. Gofkid Ltd. (C-292/00) [2003] 28 FSR 490 Adidas-Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld (C-408/01) [2003] ETMR 91 (AGO)

* Adidas-Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld (C-408/01) [2004] FSR 401 (ECJ) Both also available at

- Likelihood of injury or actual injury? Ilanah Simon „The Actual Dilution Requirement in the US, UK and EU: A Comparative Analysis‟ (2006) 12 BU J of Sci & Tech L 271; Also at: pdf Should the detriment have already occurred or is it sufficient that there is real evidence it is likely to occur? Quorn Hunt's Application; Opposition of Marlow Foods Ltd [2005] ETMR 11 („The Quorn Hunt‟) at [5964] Summary of the UK/EU authorities in:Coke v Pepsi (O-326-06) 17 Nov 2006 at [155-161] („IPSEI‟)

- Blurring * Mead Data Central v Toyota Motor Sales USA 875 F 2d 1026 (2nd Cir. 1989) Hollywood v Souza Cruz 3rd Board of Appeal (OHIM) 25 Apr 2001 at [104-114] * Adidas-Salomon (see above) AG Jacob‟s opinion of 10 Jul 2003 at [37] Followed in Spa Monopole v OHIM (T-67/04) 25 May 2005, CFI (SPA-FINDERS) at [43] * Intel Corporation Inc v. CPM United Kingdom Ltd [2006] EWHC 1878 (Ch); [2006] ETMR 90 (26 July 2006)

- Tarnishment The Quorn Hunt (See above) The kind of reputation affected: Elleni Holding v Sigla (VIPS) (R-1127/2000-3) [2005] ETMR 51 (BoA) The nature of the harm: Ferrero v KinderCare Learning Centers (R 1004/2000-1) OHIM 1st BoA, 20 Oct 2003 (KINDERCARE)

- Unfair Advantage C.A. Sheimer (M) Sdn Bhd's TM Application 2000 RPC 484 (VISA) (See pgs 37-41 of the PDF at: ) Just any association won‟t do Premier Brands v Typhoon [2000] ETMR 1071 Pebble Beach Company v Lombard Brands [2002] Scot CS 265.

Ways of describing the wrong: Hollywood v Souza Cruz (R 0283/1999-3) OHIM 3rd BoA, 25 Apr 2001 at [115-128] („Transfer of an image to facilitate commercial success‟ [121]) * Electrocoin v Coinworld [2004] EWHC 1498 (Ch) at [98-104] (The notion of cross-fertilization) Endorsed in Lladro Commercial SA v Rosa Ma Lladro Castello (16 Jan 2006) O-020-06 Nexus between goods – clothes/accessories and women‟s magazine Mülhens GmbH v The Hearst Corporation (R 552/2000-4) OHIM 4th BoA, 26 July 2001 (COSMOPOLITAN)

For identifying when this harm occurs: * Mango Sport System S.R.L. v Diknah S.L. [2005] ETMR 5 * L’Oreal v Bellure [2006] EWHC 2355 (Ch) (4 Oct 2006) * L'Oreal v Bellure [2007] EWCA Civ 968 (10 October 2007)

Whether calling to mind or association is enough? Intel Corporation Inc v. CPM United Kingdom Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 431 (Jacob LJ‟s ECJ reference) - „Without due cause‟: Limited scope to operate as a defence Electrocoin (se above) at [103] Hollywood (see above) at [98-103]

- Compare with Dilution in the US: *** Moseley v Victoria’s secret Catalogue Inc 123 S Ct 1115 (2003) Also at A helpful and concise academic panel review of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 is found at:

Seminar 10: Geographical Indications (Not to be Examined)

(a) Concluding/Revisiting any outstanding issues

(b) An overview of the law relating to geographical indications and appellations of origin (or is Californian Champagne really Champagne?) What better way to end the course?

D. WRITTEN WORK One essay assignment (TBA) to be completed over the Christmas break. There will be a choice of 3 topics and the length is 1200 words. Congratulations if you‟ve made it this far… this is the half way mark for the syllabus!


LL 4D1 Course Outline and Syllabus for Seminars


The focus this term will be on problematic or emerging areas in the law of trade marks, many of which explore the relationship between trade marks and the broader law of Unfair Competition. The aim is to explore whether (a) core principles of registered trade mark law stand up to scrutiny and retain coherence in these zones of contestation and (b) the extent to which registered trade mark law is moving away from its traditional basis of deception or confusion prevention and whether this drift can be rationalised. The sequence of topics is as follows:1. Defences to infringement & „Use as a trademark‟ 2. Comparative Advertising 3. Parallel Imports 4. Trade marks and Speech: The interaction between IP and Human Rights 5. Passing Off as a species of Unfair Competition 6. Publicity Rights & the Commercial Appropriation of Personality 7. Guest Speaker: Frederick Mostert on Well Known Marks 8. Trade marks on the Internet 9. Trade Mark history and theory

NB: As Week 6 is Reading Week, there are 9 topics this term


Seminar 1: Introduction to Defences and Exceptions

(a) Where else do we find the trade mark use requirement? (b) Should the infringing use be use as a trade mark for a successful infringement action? Or does any use constitute infringement?

* B&S - Ch 41 J Phillips and I Simon (eds) Trade Mark Use (OUP, Oxford 2005)

H Norman „Time to Blow the Whistle on Trade Mark Use‟ [2004] 1 IPQ 1 * Christian Rutz „After Arsenal and Electrocoin: Can the Opinions on Trade Mark Use be Reconciled?‟ [2005] IIC 682-705 * Po-Jen Yap „Making Sense of Trade Mark Use‟ [2007] EIPR 420 * Arsenal FC plc v Reed (very important series of cases – read (2) and (4) at the very least) (1) Laddie J‟s initial decision in favour of Mr Reed who was selling unofficial Arsenal football gear [2001] RPC 46 <> (2) Sufficient lack of clarity in the law for a reference to the ECJ; AG‟s opinion in [2002] ETMR 82 ECJ decision (C-206/01) in [2002] ECR I-10273, [2003] RPC 9 <> (3) Back to Laddie, who opined that the ECJ had missed the plot – [2002] EWHC 2695, [2003] ETMR 36 <> (4) Finally, the Court of Appeals disagrees with Laddie, follows the ECJ - [2003] RPC 39 (CA) <> (5) Reconsidered in R v Johnstone [2003] 1 WLR 1736 (HL) (which casts the Arsenal findings in doubt) <>

* Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (C-48/05) [2007] ETMR 33 (7 Mar 2006 (AG); 25 Jan 2007 (ECJ)))

(b) Descriptive Use

S 11(2) of the TM Act 1994 Kerly Ch 14 (14-164 to 14-174)

Hölterhoff v. Freiesleben (C-2/00) [2002] FSR 802 (ECJ) * Gerolsteiner Brunner GmbH v Putsch GmbH [2004] RPC 761 (ECJ) (both descriptive and TM uses – what are the policy interests being juggled?) Gillette v LA Laboratories (C-228/03) [2005] ETMR 67

Seminar 2: Comparative Advertising

* S 10(6) of the TMA 1994 * B&S 916-923 * Art 4 of the Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 Concerning Misleading and Comparative Advertising

- Introduction to the issues: * B Mills „Comparative Advertising: Should it be Allowed?‟ [1995] EIPR 417 S M Willimsky „Comparative Advertising: An Overview‟ [1996] EIPR 649 AIPPI „Q140: Unfair Competition – Comparative Advertising‟ Yearbook 1998/VIII, pages 399 – 402

- The cases for O2 and Siemens v VIPA are essential Barclays Bank v. RBS Advanta [1996] RPC 307 Cable and Wireless v. BT [1998] FSR 383 * British Airways plc v. Ryanair Ltd. [2001] 32 FSR 541 * O2 Ltd v Hutchison 3G [2006] EWHC 534 (Ch) * O2 Ltd v Hutchison 3G [2006] EWCA Civ 1656 (CA) [All O2 judgments available from] Lidl Belgium GmbH v Etablissementen Franz Colruyt NV (C-356/04) 29 Mar 2006 (AG); 19 Sep 2006 (ECJ) * Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft (C-59/05) [2006] ETMR 47 (ECJ)

- For class discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What is comparative advertising? What is the possible harm in comparative advertising? Why and how is trade mark law mobilised as a response to this harm? Are there other bodies of law/regulation which operate in this area? Is the UK in compliance with EU law in this area? The Specsaver legal notice and response as a case study [See Moodle]

Seminar 3: Parallel Imports

* s 12 of the TMA 1994 (see below) * B&S 929-945

- Introduction to the issues: * G Grassie „Parallel Imports and Trade Marks - Where are We? Parts 1 & 2‟ [2006] EIPR 474, 513

- Case Law International Exhaustion and the meaning of consent * Zino Davidoff v A&G Imports (C-414/99) [2002] RPC 20.

Levi Strauss & Co and Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd. v. Tesco [2002] 3 CMLR 11; [2003] R.P.C. 18 * Peak Holding AB v Axolin-Elinor (C-16/03) AGO 27 May/2004 and ECJ 30 Nov 2004 Roche Products Ltd v Kent [2006] EWHC 335 (Ch). Sportswear SpA and Four Marketing Ltd v Stonestyle Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 380 * Glaxo Group Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 129. When consent may be implied: Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters & Frankau Ltd; Corporacion Habanos SA v Mastercigars Direct Ltd and Kenyon [2007] EWCA Civ 176 Ability of importers to repackage * Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova (C-427/93; C-429-93) [1996] ECR I-3457, I-3528 ** Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd (C-348/04) (AGO) 6 April 2006; (ECJ) 26 April 2007 Affecting the advertising value of the mark Parfums Christian Dior SA v Evora BV (C-337/95) [1997] ECR I-6013

- For class discussion

1. 2. 3.

What is Parallel Importation? What do you mean by exhaustion of IP rights? Should the EU follow countries such as Japan and embrace international exhaustion? What are the normative arguments for and against this?


What do you make of the Nestle v Aldi notification and press release before the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission? Is Nestle‟s action justifiable? [See Moodle]

UK TMA 1994 12. - (1) A registered trade mark is not infringed by the use of the trade mark in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the European Economic Area under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods (in particular, where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market).

Seminar 4: Trade Marks and Speech

- Cases Mattel, Inc. v MCA Records Inc. 63 USPQ 2d 1715 (9th Cir. 2002) Esso SA v. Association Greenpeace France [2004] ETMR 90 (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) Esso Plc v. Greenpeace France [2006] ETMR 53 (Paris Court of Appeals)

Laugh it Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (CC of South Africa) Miss World Ltd v Channel 4 [2007] EWHC 982 (Pat) Pankajkumar Patel v Allos Therapeutics Inc June 2008 ChD

* M Spence 'Intellectual Property and the Problem of Parody' (1998) 114 Law Quarterly Review 594 Robert C. Denicola „Trademarks as Speech: Constitutional Implications of the Emerging Rationales for the Protection of the Trade Symbols‟ (1982) Wis. L. Rev. 158 * Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss „Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation‟ (1990) 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. 397 MK Cantwell „Confusion, Dilution and Speech: First Amendment Limitations on the Trademark Estate: An Update‟ (2004) 94 TMR 547 * Lisa P Ramsey „First Amendment Limitations on Trademark Rights‟ in PK Yu (ed) Intellectual Property And Information Wealth: Issues And Practices In The Digital Age Vol 3 (2007) p. 147 Available at SSRN:

Seminar 5: Passing Off as a Species of Unfair Competition (This is necessary reading for Seminar 7 – Publicity Rights are primarily protected through Passing Off in the UK)

Issues: i. The relationship between Unfair Competition and passing off ii. The 3 elements of passing off – goodwill, misrepresentation, damage iii. The evolution of passing off – is it staying true to its roots? iv. Preventing misrepresentation or misappropriation?

Required Reading: * B&S Chs 32-34 A Robertson & A Horton „Does the United Kingdom or the European Community Need an Unfair Competition Law?‟ [1995] EIPR 568 G Dworkin „Unfair Competition: Is it Time for European Harmonisation?‟ in D Vaver and L Bently (eds) Intellectual Property in the New Millennium: Essays in Honour of William R Cornish (CUP Cambridge 2004) WIPO Model Provisions on Unfair Competition (1996) Available at: WR Cornish „Genevan Bootstraps‟ [1997] 7 EIPR 336 * M Spence „Passing Off and the Misappropriation of Valuable Intangibles‟ (1996) 112 LQR 472

The definitions of passing off * Erven Warnink v Townend („Advocaat‟) [1980] RPC 31 (HL) * Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc („Jif Lemon‟) [1990] RPC 341 (HL)

The nature of the misrepresentation * Harrods v The Harrodian School [1996] RPC 697 Passing off and Unfair Competition – what sort of competitive conduct is unfair? * Cadbury-Schweppes v Pub Squash Co. Ply. Ltd. [1981] 1 WLR 193 G Dworkin „Passing off and Unfair Competition: An Opportunity Missed‟ (1981) 44 MLR 564 * Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Limited (2000) 169 ALR 677 (Australian decision) Also Available at: Further Passing Off Resources – for those writing an essay in this area H Carty An Analysis of the Economic Torts (OUP Oxford 2001) Ch 8. C Wadlow The Law of Passing Off: Unfair Competition by Misrepresentation 3rd edn (Sweet & Maxwell, London 2004) (a) C Morcom „Leading Cases in Passing Off‟ and (b) H Carty „The Development of Passing Off in the 20 th Century‟ in N Dawson and A Firth Trademarks Retrospective: Perspectives on Intellectual Property Vol. 7 (Sweet & Maxwell London 2000)

Seminar 6: Famous and Well Known Marks (Frederick Mostert)

The chapter on Protection of Famous and Well-Known Marks on Non-Competing Goods in FW Mostert Famous and Well-Known Marks: An International Analysis (Butterworths, London 1997) See also two recent decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court:Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée [2006] 1 SCR 824, 2006 SCC 23 Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. [2006] 1 SCR 772, 2006 SCC 22 F Mostert, „When is a mark “Well-known”?‟ [1997] IPQ 377 Annette Kur „Well-Known Marks, Highly Renowned Marks, and Marks Having a (High) Reputation – What‟s It All About?‟ [1992] IIC 218

Seminar 7: Publicity Rights & the Commercial Appropriation of Personality

Issues: i. What are the possible interests in protecting personality? ii. What are the possible regimes whereby personality can be protected? iii. To what extent does unfair competition law (in the UK, passing off) protect a personality interest? iv. Is this an appropriate vehicle for personality protection?

Required Reading: Melville B. Nimmer „The Right of Publicity‟ (1954) 19 Law and Contemporary Problems 203 * See the introduction (PDF on Moodle) and Ch 2 (photocopy provided) in H Beverley Smith, A Ohly and A Lucas Schloetter Privacy, Property and Personality – Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation (CUP; Cambridge 2006) D Biene „Celebrity Culture, Individuality, and Right of Publicity as a European Legal Issue‟ [2006] IIC 505 (Moodle) H Carty „Advertising, Publicity Rights and English Law‟ [2004] IPQ 209 * Stacey Dogan and Mark Lemley „What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law‟ (2006) 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1161 [Available at -]

- UK McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845 Irvine v Talksport [2002] EMLR 32 (Also at Lyngstad and Others v Anabas Products and Another (ABBA) [1977] FSR 62

- Australia (Public folder) Hogan v Koala Dundee (1988) ATPR ¶40-902 Compare with UK: Mirage Studios v Counter-feat Clothing Co. [1991] FSR 145

- US White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1396 (9th Cir. 1992). Cardtoons v Major League Baseball Players Ass 95 F 3d 959 (1996); 531 US 873 (2000) Comedy III Productions v Gary Saderup 80 Cal Rptr 2d 464 (1998); 106 Cal Rptr 2d126 (2001)

AHRB Edinburgh Personality Rights Database Project <>

Seminar 8: Trade Marks and the Internet

i. ii. iii.

Domain Names Metatags (Notions of initial interest confusion) Search Engines

Trade Marks and the Internet: Overview

* Jeremy Phillips Trade mark Law: A Practical Anatomy (Oxford University Press Oxford 2003) Ch 17 (See PDF on Moodle) * Z Efroni „Names as Domains, Names as Marks: Issues Concerning the Interface Between Internet Domain Names and Trademark Rights‟ in Peter K Yu (ed) Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Issues and Practices in the Digital Age (Praeger Publishers, 2007). Available at SSRN:

Issues in Infringement

- Generally Spyros M. Maniatis „Trade Marks and Domain Names: Back to Basics?‟ [2002] EIPR 397

- Cybersquatting and trade mark infringement British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] FSR 1 (CA). (Does liability arise on mere registration?) Phones 4U Ltd v Phone Internet Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 244 (Doctrine of Instruments of Deception applied)

- Gripe Sites and Free Speech J Lipton „Commerce vs Commentary: Gripe Sites, Parody and the First Amendment in Cyberspace‟ (August 21, 2006). Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-14 Available at SSRN:

- Metatags Compare: Reed Executive plc v Reed Business information Ltd [2004] RPC 40 (CA) [Infringement by „invisible‟ use of a trade mark?]

With: Viaticum v Google France [2004] ETMR 63

- Initial Interest Confusion/Confusion generally * Jennifer E Rothman „Initial Interest Confusion: Standing at the Crossroads of Trademark Law‟ (2005) 27 Cardozo Law Review 105. [Available at SSRN:] P O'Byrne and B Allgrove „Pre-Sale Misrepresentations in Passing Off: An Idea Whose Time has Come or Unfair Competition by the Back Door?‟ (2006) Journal of IP Law & Practice. [Available at SSRN:] Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley „Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet‟ (2004) 41 Hous. L. Rev. 777 [Available at SSRN:] Eric Goldman „Deregulating Relevancy in Internet Trademark Law‟ (2005) 54 Emory LJ 507

- Search Engines * M Daly „An Analysis of the American and European Approaches to Trade Mark Infringement and Unfair Competition by Search Engines‟ [2006] EIPR 413 (short survey of issues) J Grimmelmann „The Structure of Search Engine Law‟ (2008) 93 Iowa Law Review __ (Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: Mark Bartholomew „Making a Mark in the Internet Economy: A Trademark Analysis of Search Engine Advertising‟ (2005) 58 Okla. L. Rev. 179 - Keyword search buys: Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, 2005 WL 832398 (N.D.Cal.) Gov‟t Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, 330 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Va. 2004)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (UDRP etc)

A detailed understanding of the UDRP (or Nominet Dispute Resolution rules for the UK) is not required for the exam. The objective is to understand the differences between ADR systems like the UDRP and principles of trade mark law. A UDRP Panel Report and a court considering TM infringement could arrive at very different conclusions on the same facts. These additional resources are a follow on to Andrew Murray‟ seminar, for those of you interested in the separate Domain Name regime.

- Overview

See generally Torsten Bettinger Domain name law and Practice: An International Handbook (OUP, Oxford 2005). For the UK, see Tony Willoughby‟s chapter. * Tony Willoughby „Domain Name DRS Policies: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous‟ (2006) 1 Journal of IP Law & Practice 539 (PF)

WIPO Overview of the UDRP: Module 4.2 for UNCTAD Course on Dispute Resolution (UNCTAD/EDM/Misc.232/Add.35) (2003) WIPO overview of UDRP Panel Decisions on Selected Questions

- Cybersquatting under ADR regimes J Lipton „Beyond Cybersquatting: Taking Domain Name Disputes Past Trademark Policy‟ (2005) 40 Wake Forest Law Review. Available at SSRN: (For analysis beyond bad faith issues) Kenneth L Port „Trademark Monopolies in the Blue Nowhere‟ (2002) 28 William Mitchell Law Review 1091. Available at SSRN: (For a critical take on the heavy handed legal response)

Seminar 9: History and Theory - Paper Presentations

Pairs of students will be asked to present a key publication (tba) and connect it to themes they have encountered over this course, followed by a group discussion.

Summer Term Revision classes – to be announced. Finis.

To top