tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5273654193394175043..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Portakabin ruling: a bad result for trade mark owners?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62193054880272878302010-08-27T18:30:34.802+01:002010-08-27T18:30:34.802+01:00@ Austrotrabant: I'll be happy to discuss the ...@ Austrotrabant: I'll be happy to discuss the issue at geekish length next time I'm in Vienna. <br /><br />Reminds me of a "Erdbeerstanitzel" at Cafe Landmann :-)<br /><br />Very interesting thoughts on Ilešič' role.Kristian Holte, legal counselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11582416292247257203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70163262123552422172010-08-05T14:42:30.247+01:002010-08-05T14:42:30.247+01:00I started reading all of the above and got very co...I started reading all of the above and got very confused! Can you give me a short version. Can or can't I use the word Portakabin as a keyword in Google adwords?cabinguyhttp://www.elliottuk.com/hirenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69863501607378331472010-07-09T12:33:03.946+01:002010-07-09T12:33:03.946+01:00Furthermore:
g: In case para 86 is saying that s...<a href="http://austrotrabant.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/two-additional-ideas-about-portakabin-v-primakabin/" rel="nofollow">Furthermore:</a> <br /><br /><b>g:</b> In case para 86 is saying that someone who is using a trademark as keyword but not offering (reselling) any of the TM’s products or services on his website is causing damage to function of indicating origin would that mean that it is <b>GENERALLY</b> not allowed to book third party TM as keywords if you don’t sell the product on your website?<br /><br />Wouldn't that, in connection with "b:"(above) be '<i>holy grail</i>' we've all been searching for? <br /><br /><b>h:</b> To my understanding the ECJ has introduced the criteria of use being “<i>seriously detrimental to the <b>reputation</b> of the mark</i>” in respect to Art 7 (2). (eg para 92 last sentence) I am somehow suspicious about the use of the word “<i>reputation</i>“. Is it possible that such detrimental use is only possible where the trademark actually is a trademark with reputation as mentioned in Art 5 (2)?<br /><br />So, sorry felt the need to share that with someone. Yes, I know... that's geeky and kind of very sad. <br /><br />Anyone around in Vienna who longs to discuss this topic in person? The coffe and cake in <a href="http://www.prueckel.at/" rel="nofollow">Cafe Prückel</a> would be on me!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30114916067832773902010-07-09T09:23:47.500+01:002010-07-09T09:23:47.500+01:00Good morning cats!
I've been pondering about ...Good morning cats!<br /><br />I've been pondering about the case already yesterday <a href="http://austrotrabant.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/decision-on-c%E2%80%9155808-portakabin-v-primakabin/" rel="nofollow">a little bit</a> and here is what I've noticed. I'd love to maybe her your ideas about that<br /><br /><b>a:</b> para 37, once again. AdWords are ads shown outside/besides the organic search results. The ECJ also does not indicate that user might be confused about that. <br /><br /><b>b:</b> Am I mistaken to see para 44 to say that it makes no difference for the adverse effect on the function of indicating origin whether or not the (infringing) TM is shown in the text of the ad or not? <br /><br /><b>c:</b> In para 50 the court again (Bergspechte) expresses that the requirements for a likelihood of confusion and the adverse effect onto the function of indicating origin are the same? <br /><br /><b>d:</b> In para 60 the court just, in principle, just says that "<i>descriptive use</i>" (Art 6 (1) (b) is no valid escape route for advertisers.<br /><br />I'd love to read the Commission's statement on that issue anyway. <br /><br /><b>e:</b> In para 92 the court in principle tells that a TM owner is not entitled to prohibit an advertiser form advertising the resale of goods unless there is a legitimate reason.<br /><br />Concerning the 'de-branding'; is that something that happens very often? Won't in most cases the reseller try to keep the TM on the goods? Maybe that was just a particularity of the Portakabin case? <br /><br /><b>f:</b> One more thing: para 16: I think its just nonsense to try to book all the misspelled variations of a keyword. Is it possible that Primakabin simply used the (default) "<i>broad match</i>" keyword option but the that the court interpreted this as booking also of the variations? <br /><br />All the best, <br /><br /><a href="http://austrotrabant.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Austrotrabant</a> <br /><br />PS: Does anyone of you have any additional thoughts/knowledge concerning my post about Ilešič?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29199501673492841752010-07-09T08:32:56.750+01:002010-07-09T08:32:56.750+01:00Not sure I "like" this decision ....
&...Not sure I "like" this decision .... <br /><br />"there is such a legitimate reason where the reseller, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark which it uses in the context of advertising for its resale activities, has removed reference to that trade mark from the goods, manufactured and placed on the market by that proprietor, and replaced it with a label bearing the reseller’s name, thereby concealing the trade mark"<br /><br />This bit doesn't quite sound right and logical, I agree with you Jeremy. Also, with this guidance we will most likely get very differing results from different national courts.Birgit Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822674465997696890noreply@blogger.com