EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RULES ON STATUS OF TMS UNDER ECHR


The Mercury News reports that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that trade marks count as property for the purposes of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property (Article 1, Protocol 1, European Convention on Human Rights), but that pending applications for trade marks do not.

In a press release, the court said:
"The Court held that, while it was clear that a trademark amounted to a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 ... this was not the case until final registration of the application in question…Prior to such registration, applicants did have a hope of acquiring such a "possession", but not a legally-protected legitimate expectation."
The decision comes in the context of the US v Czech Budweiser saga. Anheuser claimed that the Portugeuse decision to allow the Czech company to use the mark under the 1986 treaty between the Czech Republic and Portugal, which protects registered designations of origin infringed the US company’s right to peaceful enjoyment in property of its trade mark.

The IPKat suspected that trade marks counted as property under the ECHR, but he’s glad to see it confirmed. He agrees that applications can’t be considered to be legally protected legitimate expectations, since this would ignore the possibility of applied-for marks being opposed on relative and absolute grounds.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RULES ON STATUS OF TMS UNDER ECHR EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RULES ON STATUS OF TMS UNDER ECHR Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Consider the power of being able to create incoming links to your site any time you want them...

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.