Intellectual property planet wishes you happy holidays.
Intellectual property planet wishes you happy holidays.
1. New patent study confirms growth in Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies. For more information here.
2. Key legal pitfalls of starting up: Protect your confidential information. For more information here.
3. Building Respect for IP Update. For more information here.
Information from Intellectual Property Center at the UNWE. More information can be found here
The General Court of the EU has ruled in case T‑61/16 Coca Cola v EUIPO which concerns an attempt by Syrian company to register the following EU trademark for drinks:
Coca Cola filed an opposition against this application based on several earlier marks among which the following:
The company claimed that the later mark tries to gain unfair advantages from the reputation of its famous trademarks imitating their font.
Initially, EUIPO dismissed the opposition considering both signs dissimilar. This decision was appealed and the Court invalidated it. In the followed re-examination the EUIPO dismissed the opposition again as groundless.
Now the General court upheld its initial position on the case concluding that the EUIPO had erred in its assessment of the evidence relating to the commercial use of the sign outside of the EU by disregarding inferences and probability analyses of the risk of free-riding within the EU.
It added that the manner in which the ‘Master’ sign is currently used is likely to lead to a “non-hypothetical” future risk of unfair advantage in the EU.
WIPO reports about the accession of the Russian Federation to the Hague Agreement for international registration of industrial designs. The Agreement will take force for the country on 28.02.2018. Russia is the 53rd country member of the Hague Agreement.
More information here.
The European Court has ruled in Case C‑230/16 Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH. This case concerns the following:
Coty Germany sells luxury cosmetics in Germany. It markets certain brands in that sector via a selective distribution network, on the basis of a selective distribution contract also used by the undertakings affiliated to it. That contract is supplemented by various special contracts designed to organise that network.
Parfümerie Akzente has for many years distributed Coty Germany goods, as an authorised distributor, both at its brick-and-mortar locations and over the internet. Internet sales are carried out partly through its own online store and partly via the platform ‘amazon.de’.
It is apparent from the order for reference that, in its selective distribution contract, Coty Germany justifies its selective distribution system in the following terms: ‘the character of Coty Prestige’s brands requires selective distribution in order to support the luxury image of these brands’.
In this respect, as regards brick-and-mortar retail, the selective distribution contract provides that each of the distributor’s sales locations must be approved by Coty Germany, which implies compliance with a number of requirements, set out in Article 2 of that contract, relating to their environment, décor and furnishing.
In particular, in the words of Article 2(1)(3) of that contract, ‘the décor and furnishing of the sales location, the selection of goods, advertising and the sales presentation must highlight and promote the luxury character of Coty Prestige’s brands. Taken into account when evaluating this criterion are, in particular, the façade, interior décor, floor coverings, type of walls, ceilings and furniture, sales space and lighting, as well as an overall clean and orderly appearance’.
Article 2(1)(6) of the distribution contract states that ‘the signage for the sales location, including the name of the undertaking and any add-ons or company slogans, must not give the impression of a limited selection of goods, low-quality outfitting or inferior advice, and it must be mounted in such a way that it does not obscure the authorised retailer’s decorations and showrooms’.
Furthermore, the contractual framework linking the parties includes a supplemental agreement on internet sales which provides, in Article 1(3), that ‘the authorised retailer is not permitted to use a different name or to engage a third-party undertaking which has not been authorised’.
Following the entry into force of Regulation No 330/2010, Coty Germany revised the selective distribution network contracts as well as that supplemental agreement, by providing in the first subparagraph of Clause I(1) of that supplemental agreement that ‘the authorised retailer is entitled to offer and sell the products on the internet, provided, however, that that internet sales activity is conducted through an “electronic shop window” of the authorised store and the luxury character of the products is preserved’. In addition, Clause I(1)(3) of that supplemental agreement expressly prohibits the use of a different business name as well as the recognisable engagement of a third-party undertaking which is not an authorised retailer of Coty Prestige.
Parfümerie Akzente refused to sign the amendments to the selective distribution contract. Coty Germany brought an action before the national court of first instance, seeking an order prohibiting, in accordance with Clause I(1)(3), the defendant in the main proceedings from distributing products bearing the brand at issue via the platform ‘amazon.de’.
By judgment of 31 July 2014, that court dismissed that action on the ground that the contractual clause at issue was contrary to Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Law against restrictions of competition) or Article 101(1) TFEU. It found that the objective of maintaining a prestigious image of the mark could not, in accordance with the judgment of 13 October 2011, Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique (C‑439/09, EU:C:2011:649), justify the introduction of a selective distribution system which, by definition, restricted competition. That clause also constituted, in the view of that court, a hardcore restriction under Article 4(c) of Regulation No 330/2010.
Furthermore, the national court of first instance took the view that that clause did not meet the conditions for benefiting from an individual exemption either, since it had not been demonstrated that the general prohibition on internet sales via third-party platforms which it imposed resulted in efficiency gains of such a kind as to offset the disadvantages for competition that resulted from the restriction of the means of marketing. In any event, that court considered that such a general prohibition was unnecessary, since there were other means which were also appropriate but less restrictive of competition, such as the application of specific quality criteria for the third-party platforms.
Coty Germany brought an appeal against the judgment of the national court of first instance before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany). In that context, that court is uncertain as to whether the contractual arrangement existing between both parties to the dispute is lawful under EU competition law.
In those circumstances, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Do selective distribution systems that have as their aim the distribution of luxury goods and primarily serve to ensure a “luxury image” for the goods constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU?
(2) Does it constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU if the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade are prohibited generally from engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales, irrespective of whether the manufacturer’s legitimate quality standards are contravened in the specific case?
(3) Is Article 4(b) of Regulation No 330/2010 to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition of engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales that is imposed on the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade constitutes a restriction of the retailer’s customer group “by object”?
(4) Is Article 4(c) of Regulation No 330/2010 to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition of engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales that is imposed on the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade constitutes a restriction of passive sales to end users “by object”?’
The Court decision is:
1. Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods complies with that provision to the extent that resellers are chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature that are laid down uniformly for all potential resellers and applied in a non-discriminatory fashion and that the criteria laid down do not go beyond what is necessary.
2. Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits authorised distributors in a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for the internet sale of the contract goods, on condition that that clause has the objective of preserving the luxury image of those goods, that it is laid down uniformly and not applied in a discriminatory fashion, and that it is proportionate in the light of the objective pursued, these being matters to be determined by the referring court.
3. Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, which operate as distributors at the retail level of trade, of making use, in a discernible manner, of third-party undertakings for internet sales does not constitute a restriction of customers, within the meaning of Article 4(b) of that regulation, or a restriction of passive sales to end users, within the meaning of Article 4(c) of that regulation.
The EU General Court issued a decision on a case between Apple and the Chinese technology company Xiaomi which tried to register an EU trademark MI PAD.
Against this mark, an opposition was filed based on earlier Apple’s trademarks iPad.
EUIPO took a decision that there is a sufficient similarity between both signs bearing in mind the fact that the only difference is the initial letter M in the Xiaomi’s mark which, however, is not sufficient to overcome the possible consumer confusion.
The General Court upheld this conclusion and dismissed the Xiaomi’s appeal.
EUIPO reports about the accession of Argentina and Moldova to the TM View database for trademarks. In that way the participating offices become 62 giving access to approximately 48 million trademarks around the world.
More information here.