The Approach of The Court of Justice of the European Union Towards the Protection of Three-Dimensional Marks

Abstract

Three-dimensionalshapes are themost common type of non-traditionalmarks becoming widespread. Especially in the last two decades, trade mark applications regarding the protection of three-dimensional shapes have increased significantly. Assessment for the registration of three-dimensional shape marks is no different from other marks types, as the Court of Justice of the European Union suggests. However, in addition to standard trade mark protection requirements, threedimensional shapes must fulfil additional criteria. The EU Trade Mark Regulation and the EU Trade Mark Directive include special provisions for three-dimensional marks. According to the law, three-dimensional shapes which result from the nature of the goods, are necessary to obtain a technical result, or give substantial value to the goods, are excluded from trade mark protection in the EU. The Court of Justice of the European Union is quite strict in interpreting the abovementioned criteria for threedimensional shape marks. As an inherent result, obtaining trade mark protection for three-dimensional shapes becomes increasingly difficult for proprietors. The CJEU gives particular importance to the public interest clause and ensures that common shapes keep open for competition in the market since shapes are finite and certain shapes are in common use. The CJEU justifies the conduct by claiming that time-restricted intellectual property rights such as patent or design rights should not be extended through the trade mark route for specific products. The first and second subsections of the exclusion seem to be appropriate. However, the third exclusion is problematic due to its wording and interpretation by the CJEU. Thus, this study suggests that narrowing the scope of the third subsection would fit the purposes of trade mark protection regarding three-dimensional shapes.

Keywords

• Trade Mark
• Three-Dimensional Shape
• Non-Traditional Mark
• Distinctiveness
• Nature of Goods
• Technical Result
• EU Trade Mark Directive
• EU Trade Mark Regulation
• The Court of Justice of the European Union Case Law
• Ticari Marka
• Üç Boyutlu Şekil
• Geleneksel Olmayan Marka
• Ayırt Edicilik
• Malların Niteliği
• Teknik Sonuç
• AB Ticari Marka Direktifi
• AB Ticari Marka Yönetmeliği
• Avrupa Adalet Divanı İçtihatları

Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın Üç Boyutlu İşaretlerin Korunmasına Yaklaşımı

Abstract

Üç boyutlu şekiller, giderek yaygınlaşan yeni tip işaretlerin en yaygın türüdür. Özellikle son yirmi yılda üç boyutlu şekillerin marka olarak korunmasına yönelik başvurular oldukça artmıştır. Üç boyutlu şekil işaretlerinin tescili için değerlendirme, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın da belirttiği gibi diğerişaret türlerinden farklı olmamakla birlikte, üç boyutlu şekilleriçin ticari marka olmanın genel koşullarına ek olarak ayrıca ek kriterler bulunmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, AB Ticari Marka Yönetmeliği ve AB Ticari Marka Direktifi, üç boyutlu markaların tescili için özel hükümler içermektedir. Yasaya göre, malların doğasından kaynaklanan, teknik birsonuç elde etmek için gerekli olan veya mallara önemli bir değer kazandıran üç boyutlu şekiller, AB’de ticari marka korumasının dışındadır. Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı, üç boyutlu şekil işaretleri için yukarıda belirtilen kriterleri yorumlamada oldukça katıdır. Doğal bir sonuç olarak, üç boyutlu şekiller için ticari marka koruması elde etmek, marka sahipleri için giderek daha zor hale gelmektedir. ABAD, kamu yararı şartına özel önem verdiği için ve ortak şekillerin piyasada rekabete açık kalmasını sağlamaya çalıştığı için, ortak kullanımda olan belli başlı şekiller ticari marka olamamaktadır. Buna ek olarak, ABAD, patent veya tasarım hakları gibi belirli bir zaman sınırı olan fikri mülkiyet haklarının ticari marka koruması ile genişletilmemesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu sebeple ek kriterin birinci ve ikinci alt başlıkları kanunun amacına uygun görünmektedir. Bununla birlikte, üçüncü istisna, yazımının açık uçlu olması ve ABAD tarafından katı yorumlanması nedeniyle sorunludur. Bu nedenle, makale, üçüncü alt başlığın kapsamının daraltılmasının, üç boyutlu şekillere ilişkin marka koruma amaçlarına daha uygun olacağını ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

• Ticari Marka
• Üç Boyutlu Şekil
• Geleneksel Olmayan Marka
• Ayırt Edicilik
• Malların Niteliği
• Teknik Sonuç
• AB Ticari Marka Direktifi
• AB Ticari Marka Yönetmeliği
• Avrupa Adalet Divanı İçtihatları

References

1. Primary Sources
2. Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) and others [1999] ECLI:EU:C: 1999:230 google scholar
3. Case C-299/99 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd. [2002] ECLI:EU:C: 2002:377 google scholar
4. Case C-299/99 Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer [2001] ECLI:EU: 2001:52 google scholar
5. Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01 Linde and Others [2003] ECLI:EU:C:2003:206 google scholar
6. Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P Henkel KGaA v OHIM [2004] ECLI:EU:C: 2004:258 google scholar
7. Case C-136/02 P Mag Instrument Inc. v OHIM [2004] ECLI:EU:C: 2004:592 google scholar
8. Cases C-469/01 P to C-472/01 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2004] ECLI:EU:C:2004:259 google scholar

9. Case C-24/05 P August Storck KG v OHIM [2006] ECLI:EU:C: 2006:421 google scholar
10. Case C-173/04 P Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v OHIM [2006] ECLI:EU:C: 2006:20 google scholar
11. Case C-238/06 P Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v OHIM [2007] ECLI:EU:C:2007:635 google scholar
12. Case C-321/03 Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2007] ECLI:EU:C:2007:51 google scholar
13. Case C-371/06 Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International BV. [2007] ECLI:EU:C: 2007:542 google scholar
14. Case C-48/09 Lego Juris A/S v OHIM [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:516 google scholar
15. Case C-98/11 P Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM [2012] ECLI:EU:C: 2012:307 google scholar
16. Case C-205/13 Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others [2014] ECLI:EU:C: 2014:2233 google scholar
17. Case C-205/13, Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, delivered on 14 May 2014, [2014] ECLI:EU:C: 2014:322 google scholar
18. Case C-215/14 Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2015] ECLI:EU:C: 2015:604 google scholar
19. Case C-421/13 Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt (DPMA) [2014] ECLI:EU:C: 2014:2070 google scholar
20. Case C-273/00 Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt [2002] ECLI:EU:C:2002:748 google scholar
21. Case C-936/19 P Rubik’s Brand Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:286 google scholar
22. Case T-601/17, Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) [2019] EU:T:2019:765 google scholar
23. Case T-508/08 Bang & Olufsen A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) [2011] ECLI:EU:T:2011:575 google scholar
24. Case T-416/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHMI - Pi-Design and Others [2012] ECLI:EU:T:2012:222 google scholar
25. Case T-128/01 Daimler Chrysler v OHIM [2003] ECLI:EU:T:2003:62 google scholar
26. Cases R-395/199-3, R-272/199-3, OHIM Board of Appeal, Milan Ferragamo Decisions google scholar
27. Case Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products [1999] RPC 116 (23) 809 google scholar
28. Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark google scholar
29. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark google scholar
30. Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs google scholar
31. Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) google scholar
32. Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification) (Text with EEA relevance) google scholar
33. Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to Trade Marks google scholar
34. Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to Trade Marks google scholar
35. Patents Act 1977 (UK) google scholar
36. European Patent Convention 2000 google scholar
37. Secondary Sources
38. Ahuja V K, ‘Non-traditional trade marks: new dimension of the trade marks law’ (2010) EIPR 575 google scholar
39. Aplin T and Davis J, Intellectual Property Law: Texts, Cases, and Materials (3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2017) google scholar
40. Asschenfeldt S, ‘Protection of Shapes as Trade marks’ (2003) 14 IIP Bulletin 102 google scholar
41. Balice S, ‘Tripp Trapp Case: the Court of Justice on 3D trade marks’ (2015) EIPR 807 google scholar
42. Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (4th ed., Oxford University Press 2014) google scholar
43. Bergquist J and Curley D, ‘Shape trade marks and fast-moving consumer goods’ (2008) EIPR 17 google scholar
44. Cook T, ‘Three Dimensional Trade marks in the European Union’ (2014) 19 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 423 google scholar
45. Fields D and Muller A, ‘Going against tradition: the effect of eliminating the requirement of representing a trade mark graphically on applications for non-traditional trade marks’ (2017) EIPR 238 google scholar
46. Gielen C, “Substantial value rule: How it came into being and why it should be abolished?” (2014) EIPR 164 google scholar
47. Gonzales L H, ‘Functional Shape Marks Conditions for the exclusion of protection and limits thereof’, Dissertation 2009-2010 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculty of Law google scholar
48. Heal M, ‘Shape Marks and the Misshapen Monopoly’ (2005), google scholar
49. Heath C and Anselm Sanders A K (editors), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law (1st ed., Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, 2005) google scholar
50. Humphreys G, ‘Non-conventional trade marks: an overview of some of the leading case law of the Boards of Appeal’ (2010) EIPR 437 google scholar
51. Jones J, ‘Have a break... have a CJEU Kit Kar reference; clarification sought in what circumstances the shape of a product can be registered as a trade mark’ (2014) EIPR 733 google scholar
52. Jones J, ‘Chocolate wars: the Kit Kat awakens -acquired distinctiveness not put to bed by the courts’ (2016) EIPR 307 google scholar
53. Klett A, ‘Three-Dimensional Trade marks before the European Court of Justice- A Lost cause?’ (2007) 62(8) INTA Bulletin, Available at: google scholar
54. Kur A, ‘Too Pretty to Protect? Trade Mark Law and the Enigma of Aesthetic Functionality’ (2011) Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 11-16 google scholar
55. Liakatou V and Maniatis S, ‘Lego - building a European concept of functionality’ (2010) EIPR 653 google scholar
56. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System (2011) google scholar
57. MacQueen H, Waelde C, Laurie G and Brown A, Contemporary Intellectual Property Law and Policy (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2011) google scholar
58. Mirza J T, ‘CJEU expands trade mark law to include the design of a store layout’ (2014) EIPR 813 google scholar
59. Shillito M and Newton H, ‘EU: trade marks - shape marks’ (2009) EIPR N25 google scholar
60. Torremans P, Holyoak & Torremans Intellectual Property Law, (8th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016) google scholar
61. Unlu S and Aral C, ‘A Comparative Study on Three-Dimensional Marks in the European and Turkish Practice’ (2011), http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/119442/Trade mark/A+Comparati ve+Study+on+Three+Dimensional+Shape+Marks+in+the+European+and+Turkish+Practice> google scholar