The Opinion of Advocate General Wahl was published today in Case C‑125/14 Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV, a request for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from the Hungarian Fővárosi Törvényszék -- that's the Budapest Municipal Court, if you didn't know ["I knew that", said Merpel ...].
Iron & Smith applied to the Fővárosi Törvényszék for annulment of the decision refusing the application for registration. Entertaining doubts as to the correct interpretation of Article 4(3) of European Union's much interpreted and indeed much misinterpreted trade mark directive, the referring court has now requested a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
‘(1) Is it sufficient, for the purposes of proving that a Community trade mark has a reputation within the meaning of Article 4(3) …, for that mark to have a reputation in one Member State, including where the national trade mark application which has been opposed on the basis of such a reputation has been lodged in a country other than that Member State?This morning AG Wahl proposed that the CJEU answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék as follows:
(2) May the principles laid down by [the CJEU] regarding the genuine use of a Community trade mark be applied in the context of the territorial criteria used when examining the reputation of such a mark?
(3) If the proprietor of an earlier Community trade mark has proved that that mark has a reputation in countries other than the Member State in which the national trade mark application has been lodged — which cover a substantial part of the territory of the European Union — may he also be required, notwithstanding that fact, to adduce conclusive proof in relation to that Member State?
(1) [Answering questions 1 and 2, correctly in this Kat's view] For the purposes of Article 4(3) ... it may — depending on the specific mark which is described as enjoying a reputation and, accordingly, on the public concerned — be sufficient that a Community trade mark enjoys a reputation in one Member State, which does not need to be the State in which that provision is relied upon. In that regard, for the purposes of determining whether a reputation exists within the meaning of Article 4(3), the principles laid down in case-law in respect of the requirement to show genuine use of a trade mark are not relevant.This Kat expects the CJEU to go along with AG Wahl's Opinion, though he would be the first to agree that many a surprising ruling has emerged from that august body.
(2) Where the earlier Community trade mark does not enjoy a reputation in the Member State in which Article 4(3) ... is relied upon, in order to prove that, without due cause, unfair advantage is taken of, or detriment is caused to, the distinctive character or repute of the Community trade mark for the purposes of that provision, it is necessary to show that a commercially pertinent proportion of the relevant public in that Member State will make a link with the earlier trade mark. In that regard, the strength of the earlier mark constitutes an important factor for the purposes of proving such association [This Kat thinks that this is right too, though he thinks some big brand owners will not like it. However, he doubts that it will make a practical difference in many cases since, even if no unfair advantage is taken and no detriment inflicted, the chances of there being a likelihood of confusion will generally prevent the later mark being registered].
A Diary of the Saturdays, sponsored
by Unilever's Impulse
What makes people sweat here and here
What makes people smell here and here