Trade Mark Registrations in Bad FaithPDF电子书下载

Ⅰ INTRODUCTION 3

1. General Introduction 3

2. The General Framework for Obtaining Trade Marks 13

Ⅱ EUROPEAN TRADE MARK LAW: HARMONIZATION AND UNIFICATION 47

3. Legislative History 47

4. The Trade Mark Directive 73

5. The Community Trade Mark Regulation 109

Ⅲ THE DIRECTIVE IN THE MEMBER STATES: IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION 165

6. Benelux: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg 165

7. Germany 185

8. France 203

9. Italy 215

10. United Kingdom 223

11. Ireland 239

12. Denmark 245

13. Greece 251

14. Portugal 259

15. Spain 261

16. Austria 269

17. Finland 281

18. Sweden 287

19. The New Member States 293

Ⅳ BAD FAITH REVEALED 299

20. Towards a Uniform Approach for Bad Faith 299

Bibliography 343

Index 357

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 1

1. General Introduction 1

A. What this Book is About 1

B. Approach and Structure 2

C. Bad Faith in Other Areas of Intellectual Property Law 4

(a) Misappropriation of other IP rights 5

(b) Recovery of profits and damages 8

(c) Domain names 9

D. Summary 12

2. The General Framework for Obtaining Trade Marks 1

A. Obtaining Trade Marks 1

(a) Two general systems 2

(b) First-to-use system 3

(c) First-to-file system 7

(d) Parallel terminology 19

(e) Cumulation 22

(f) Territoriality 23

(g) Consequences of a first-to-file-system 28

B. Backgrounds and Developments 30

(a) Free enterprise 31

(b) Abolishing restrictions on trade mark registration and transfer 32

C. Protective Measures 33

(a) Cross-border trade mark registration 34

(b) Legal protection 38

D. Bad Faith 50

(a) Positioning bad faith in the system for obtaining trade marks 50

(b) Positioning bad faith in the system of trade mark protection 53

E. Summary 55

Ⅱ EUROPEAN TRADE MARK LAW: HARMONIZATION AND UNIFICATION 1

3. Legislative History 1

A. 1957-76: The Beginning 1

B. 1977-86: Negotiating the Community Trade Mark Regulation 3

(a) February 1978: raising the issue of bad faith: a Dutch first 4

(b) February 1978: acquiescence and bad faith 5

(c) May 1982: an Italian request to combat trade mark piracy 6

(d) December 1982: a Danish proposal for bad faith 7

(e) December 1982: rejecting the Benelux provision 8

(f) October 1984: adopting the German proposal of bona fide intent-to-use 9

C. 1986-8: Negotiating the Trade Mark Directive 10

(a) July 1986: determining the level of harmonization 12

(b) October 1986: a Dutch demand for a general provision against bad faith 17

(c) December 1986: a Danish proposal concerning knowledge of foreign prior use 18

(d) October 1987: the bad faith provisions find their way into the Directive 19

(e) November 1987: French opposition to article 2A—4G 20

(f) November 1987: bad faith instead of'knowing or ought to have known' 22

(g) December 1988: the final text of articles 3--2D and 4—4G 24

D. 1986-93: Finalizing the Community Trade Mark Regulation 25

(a) May 1987: bad faith instead of bona fide intent-to-use 27

(b) September 1987: French and Danish objections 29

(c) October 1987: bad faith does not equal 'not in good faith' 32

(d) 1988-93: the final text of article 51-1B 33

E. Useful or Useless? The Relevance of Legislative History 35

F. Evaluation 40

G. Summary 41

4. The Trade Mark Directive 1

A. Aspects Common to Articles 3--2D and 4--4G 1

(a) Aim and scope of harmonization 2

(b) Form and result: refusal, opposition, or cancellation 7

(c) Territoriality 8

(d) Bad faith in the Directive: the absence of a definition and the presence of some preliminary clues 11

(e) Bad faith and acquiescence 24

(f) Bad faith and unauthorized registration by agents or representatives 27

B. Interpreting Bad Faith 28

(a) Approaches 29

(b) Interpretation of bad faith: diverging views in previous dissertations 34

(c) Interpretation of bad faith: towards a preliminary ruling by the ECJ 41

C. Specifics of Article 4-4G 47

(a) Stricter conditions for extra-territorial bad faith protection 48

(b) Likelihood of confusion 50

(c) Foreign trade mark use 54

D. Summary 56

5. The Community Trade Mark Regulation 1

A. Introduction 1

(a) General characteristics 2

(b) Brief evaluation of the CTM system 5

B. Article 52-1B CTMR: Invalidating a CTM on the Basis of Bad Faith 7

(a) Procedural aspects 8

(b) Territorial limitations 14

(c) Bad faith in the Regulation: the absence of a definition and the presence of some preliminary clues 19

(d) Bad faith and acquiescence 31

(e) Bad faith and unauthorized registration by agents or representatives 32

C. OHIM on Bad Faith 35

(a) Diverging definitions 36

(b) Various trends 50

D. Diverging Views in the Member States: The CTM Courts and Literature on Article 52-1B 65

(a) Three High Court decisions and one referral to the ECJ: Decon, The Colour of Elegance, and Goldhase 66

(b) Early incidental references to bad faith by the Community courts: Nu- Tride and Henkd 70

(c) Important trends in the Member States 71

E. EU Enlargement and Bad Faith 73

F. Summary 76

Ⅲ THE DIRECTIVE IN THE MEMBER STATES: IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION 1

6. Benelux: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg 1

A. Background 1

B. Implementation of Article 3--2D TMD? 3

C. The Benelux Provision: Article 2.4F 4

D. Prior Use in the Benelux Countries (Article 2.4F-1) 8

(a) Bad faith of the trade mark applicant 9

(b) Prior use in good faith 13

(c) Additional requirements on prior use 19

E. Prior Use outside the Benelux Countries (Article 2.4F-2) 21

(a) Bad faith of the trade mark applicant 23

(b) Prior use in good faith 25

(c) Additional requirements on prior use 26

F. Other Examples of Bad Faith 27

G. Procedural Aspects 30

H. The (In)applicability of Unfair Competition Law 31

I. Non-Compliance with the Directive? 33

J. Summary 35

7. Germany 1

A. Implementation of Article 3-2D TMD 1

B. Interpretation 5

(a) The initial aim of the German legislator: autonomous interpretation and a new beginning 5

(b) The approach by the German courts: old news 7

(c) Knowledge of prior use alone insufficient for finding bad faith 17

(d) Bad faith: subjective concept, objectified assessment 20

(e) Other suggestions of bad faith 23

(f) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 25

C. Procedural Aspects 26

D. Overlap 28

E. Summary 32

8. France 1

A. No Implementation of Articles 3-2D or 4-4G TMD 1

B. Reclaiming Fraudulent Trade Mark Applications on the basis of Article 712-6 CPI 2

(a) 1964--91 : fraus omnia corrumpit 3

(b) 1991-present: article 712-6 CPI 4

C. Fraus Omnia Corrurnpit Revisited 8

D. Cross-border Trade Mark Grabbing 10

E. Non-compliance with the Directive? 11

F. Summary 14

9. Italy 1

A. Implementation of Article 3-2D TMD 1

B. Interpretation 3

(a) Bad faith: abuse of title, violation of business ethics, and a residual concept 3

(b) Bad faith as a subjective legal concept 5

(c) Intent to harm or obstruct 6

(d) Knowledge of prior use 7

(e) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 8

C. Procedural Aspects 9

D. Summary 10

10. United Kingdom 1

A. Implementation of Article 3-29 TMD 1

(a) Introducing s3(6) TMA 1

(b) The laws explanatory notes 2

B. Interpretation 3

(a) Introduction 3

(b) Gromax: dishonesty and other violations of standards of acceptable commercial behaviour 6

(c) China White: getting rid of Robin Hood 7

(d) Ajit Weekly and World Cup Willie. getting to grips with the combined test 10

(e) Between knowledge and dishonesty 12

(f) Lack of bona fide intent-to-use? 18

(g) Celebrity trade mark grabbing 22

(h) Broad or restrictive interpretation? 23

(i) Other suggestions of bad faith 24

(j) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 26

C. Procedural Aspects 31

D. Passing Off 32

E. Summary 33

11. Ireland 1

A. Implementation of Article 3-2D TMD 1

B. Interpretation 2

(a) Relying on Gromax: dishonesty and other violations of standards of acceptable commercial behaviour 2

(b) Knowledge of prior use 3

(c) Lack of bona fide intent-to-use? 4

(d) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 5

C. Procedural Aspects 7

D. Summary 8

12. Denmark 1

A. Implementation of Article 4-4G TMD 1

B. Interpretation 5

(a) Knowledge of prior use 5

C. Non-compliance with the Directive? 7

D. Summary 9

13. Greece 1

A. Implementation of Articles 3-2D and 4-4G TMD 1

B. Bad Faith and Article 3-2B Nπ∑ 2

(a) A quick look at its predecessors 2

(b) Interpretation 3

C. Bad Faith and Article 4-3c Nπ∑ 6

(a) Differences from article 4-4G TMD 7

(b) Interpretation 8

D. Non-compliance with the Directive? 9

E. Procedural Aspects 12

F. Summary 13

14. Portugal 1

A. No Implementation of articles 3-2D or 4-4G TMD 1

B. Summary 2

15. Spain 1

A. Implementation of Article 3-2D TMD 1

B. Interpretation 2

(a) Knowledge of prior use or earlier rights 3

(b) Other suggestions of bad faith 5

(c) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 6

C. Procedural Aspects 8

D. Overlap 9

E. Summary 12

16. Austria 1

A. Implementation of Article 3--2D TMD 1

B. Interpretation 5

(a) Bad faith as a subjective legal concept 6

(b) Intent to obstruct: Behinderungsabsicht 8

(c) Knowledge of prior use 10

(d) Other suggestions of bad faith 15

(e) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 16

C. Procedural Aspects 19

D. Overlap 21

E. Summary 24

17. Finland 1

A. No Explicit Implementation of Articles 3-2D or 4-4G TMD 1

B. The Existing Provision: Article 14-(1)7 TMKL 3

(a) General 3

(b) Requirements 4

(c) Knowledge of prior use 9

(d) Non-compliance with the Directive? 10

C. Summary 12

18. Sweden 1

A. No Explicit Implementation of Articles 3-2D or 4-4G TMD 1

B. The Existing Provision: Article 14-(1 ) 7 svVML 2

(a) General 2

(b) Knowledge of prior use 4

(c) Cross-border trade mark grabbing 5

(d) Non-corapliance with the Directive? 6

(e) The draft proposal of 2001 : Article 15-1 (2) 7

C. Summary 10

19. The New Member States 1

A. Brief Overview on Implementation 1

B. Brief Evaluation 2

Ⅳ BAD FAITH REVEALED 1

20. Towards a Uniform Approach for Bad Faith 1

A. Introduction 1

B. Big Opinions on Big Words 3

(a) Oh academia: previous dissertations on bad faith 4

(b) The oracle at the Kirchberg: the ECJ on Goldhase 10

C. Interpreting Bad Faith: Goldhaseand beyond 20

(a) Preliminary observations 20

(b) The first factor: 'knowing of prior use' 22

(c) The second factor: 'intention' 44

(d) The third factor: 'the degree of legal protection' 67

(e) Other general factors 69

(f) Concluding observations on the Community concept of bad faith 80

D. Implementing Bad Faith Legislation: Between Right and Wrong 86

E. Back to Square One: Important Perceptions and Perspectives 91

(a) Practical perspective 93

(b) Conceptual perspective 94

(c) Historical perspective 95

(d) Systematic perspective 96

(e) Territorial perspective 98

F. Summary: Bad Faith in 60 Seconds 99

Bibliography 343

Index 357