FTC complaint over copyright notices
The IPKat wonders if this complaint will really make much difference – do consumers (except for IP lawyers who should know better) ever actually read the copyright notices?
The IPKat notes details of a new reference to the ECJ on the UK-IPO website. The court in PAGO International C-301/07 has asked:
Is a Community trade mark protected in the whole of the Community as a ‘trade mark with a reputation’ for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (Regulation 40/94) if it has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative: is a mark which has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State protected in that Member State under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94, so that a prohibition limited to that Member State may be issued?
The IPKat reckon that the answer to question 1 is yes. In General Motors v Yplon the ECJ said in connection with national marks
Territorially, the condition [of having a reputation] is fulfilled when, in the terms of Article 5(2) of the Directive, the trade mark has a reputation 'in the Member State‘. In the absence of any definition of the Community provision in this respect, a trade mark cannot be required to have a reputation 'throughout‘ the territory of the Member State. It is sufficient for it to exist in a substantial part of it.
By analogy, a reputation in a substantial part of the EU should satisfy Art.9(1)(c). In other areas of CTM law, a single Member State is considered a substantial part of the EU so QED.