NOT FOLLOWING EUROPEAN TRADE MARK LAW IGNORANCE OR … · Twist v Pepsi Twist (page 38 para 25 &...
22
NOT FOLLOWING EUROPEAN TRADE MARK LAW IGNORANCE OR ARROGANCE? Darren Olivier | Partner Maureen Makoko | Associate 1
Transcript of NOT FOLLOWING EUROPEAN TRADE MARK LAW IGNORANCE OR … · Twist v Pepsi Twist (page 38 para 25 &...
NOT FOLLOWING EUROPEAN
TRADE MARK LAW
IGNORANCE OR ARROGANCE?
Darren Olivier | Partner
Maureen Makoko | Associate1
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 2
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 3
▪ The European in Sabel BV v Puma AG articulates the so-called “global appreciation test”
▪ Others flow from it, namely:
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (Case C-39/97), Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer &
Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (Case C-342/97), Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG & Adidas Benelux
BV (Case C-425/98), Matratzen Concord GmbH v OHIM (Case C-3/03), Medion AG v Thomson
Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (Case C-120/04), Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v OHIM
(Case C-334/05 P) and Bimbo SA v OHIM (Case C-519/12 P):
▪ Hopefully these are all familiar. They are the most referenced European cases in the last 20 years.
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W
LOC: THE EVOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN TEST
4
LOC: THE ADOPTION OF THE EUROPEAN TEST
▪ The RSA “global appreciation test” is the test articulated in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck
Paints (Pty) Ltd in 1984, and after the new trade marks Act with reference to Sabel v Puma
▪ Sabel BV v Puma AG has been cited 32 times since 2000. It was first mentioned in the SCA judgment
in Bata Limited v Face Fashions CC
▪ Subsequent decisions reference the test as adopted: eg Yiar Shimanesky v Browns the Diamond
Store P/L
“…that principle [the global appreciation principle/test], originating in the European Court of
Justice in Sabel BV v Puma AG was adopted by this court in Bata Limited v Face Fashions CC”
[emphasis added]
▪ Other courts have also adopted or used the decisions that flow from it, mentioned in the earlier slide
(see also pages 59-62 handout)
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 5
TRADE MARKS LEGISLATION
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 6
SIMILAR PROVISIONS CAN BE FOUND IN:
Article 8 of the European Union Trade Marks
Regulations; and
Section 10 and Section 34 of the South African
Trade Marks Act
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 7
1. COMPARISON OF MARKS▪ Phonetic, Visual, Conceptual
▪ What is the level of similarity?
2. COMPARISON OF GOODS▪ Respective uses of the goods and services
▪ Respective users of the goods and services
▪ The physical nature of the goods and services
▪ The respective trade channels which the goods and services
reach the market
▪ If the goods and services can be found on the same or
different shelves
▪ The extent to which the goods or services are competitive
▪ What is the level of similarity?
HOW THE TEST IS APPLIED
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 8
4. STRENGTH OF THE EARLIER MARK
▪ Analysis of the strength of the earlier mark
(inherently and because of its reputation)
5. NATURE OF THE CONSUMER
▪ Consider this in detail including the nature
of the purchasing decision
6. GLOBAL ASSESSMENT
▪ Global appreciation test (1-5 which are
assessed systematically, are then all wrapped up)
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 9
CLAIRE HARRISON v MS ASHLEY NEMES (UK CASE)
The decision from page 9 clearly identifies the points to be considered on
page 11 and then goes through all the points to determine whether there is
likelihood of confusion. The Court then reiterates how they will determine the
likelihood of confusion in paragraph 28.
CASE LAW ANALYSIS
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 10
KABUSHIKI KAISHA YAKULT HONSHA v GUANGDONG SUN RISE
INDUSTRIAL CO LTD (EU CASE)
▪ Marks are identical YAKULT
▪ Earlier Trade Mark is a strong mark
▪ Goods are dissimilar therefore no likelihood of confusion
THE COURT STATED:
“Since the goods and services are clearly dissimilar, one of the necessary
conditions of Article 8(1)(b) of the EUTMR is not fulfilled, and the opposition
must be rejected.
The finding would still be valid even if the earlier trade mark were to be
considered as enjoying a high degree of distinctiveness. Given that the
dissimilarity of the goods and services cannot be overcome by the highly
distinctive character of the earlier trade marks, the evidence submitted by the
opponent in this respect does not alter the outcome reached.”
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 11
RSA APPROACH
9A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W
▪ 11 cases located using Saflii involving trade mark legislation
▪ Of those only 5 really deal with the likelihood of confusion test
▪ The Urban case (page 22 para 14, and page 28 para 34)
▪ Twist v Pepsi Twist (page 38 para 25 & Medion reference on page 39)
▪ E-Travel v Amadeus I.T Group (page 43 the entire judgment)
▪ Big Boy Scooters (page 48, para 37; page 49 para 42/43)
▪ Dinnermates (TVL) CC (page 57, para 22 and 23)
TRADE MARKS LEGISLATION
A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W 13
RSA APPROACH
9A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W
so nearly resembling the goods or services
clothing of the same kind
same product market
two competing trade marks
at a lower level of interrogation;
conceptual prominence
disregard extraneous matter such as the existence of reputation
applicant wants a monopoly over the alphabet
encroaching on the applicant’s trade mark
COMMON MISTAKES
9A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W
▪ Conflation of the elements under the test
▪ Failure to analyse each element of the test
▪ Misuse of the phrase “confusingly similar” often indicating conflation
▪ Inaccurate use of wording often leading to confusion as to meaning
▪ No analysis of the strength of the earlier trade mark
▪ No reference to European decision on the exact same point
ADVANTAGES OF LOOKING NORTH
9A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W
▪ Systematic approach that reduces the risk of mistakes or oversights
▪ Makes constructing arguments and submissions more simple
▪ Vast database of decisions that are easy to search
▪ Easier to guide the judge or adjudicator to one’s train of thought
▪ Easier to appeal, reduces costs and narrows the issues
▪ Easier to teach others
▪ Caters for South Africa’s diversity
WHERE TO GO FOR HELP?UKIPOhttps://www.gov.uk/search-trade-mark-decisions
17
18
DARTS IPhttps://app.darts-ip.com/darts-web/client/welcome.jsf
20
SANDTON CASE DISCUSSION
Please join us on:
Thursdays
09h00
Sandton Office
Don’t get caught in
Yoda pants!
21A D A M S & A D A M S \ N O T F O L L O W I N G E U R O P E A N T R A D E M A R K L A W
“Train yourself to let go of the things
you fear to lose.”
George Lucas
