tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5933279464709677720..comments2024-03-28T08:10:18.991+00:00Comments on The IPKat: A student asks: "what's the use?" Can you help?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62064452915071595632012-11-20T23:17:01.167+00:002012-11-20T23:17:01.167+00:00"Delimination" from the verb delimit, to..."Delimination" from the verb delimit, to mean demarcate. The word is commonly used in computer programming. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45678928887668290622012-11-20T14:50:47.643+00:002012-11-20T14:50:47.643+00:00The Interflora-case of the ECJ definitely is worth...The Interflora-case of the ECJ definitely is worth reading through as well as the above mention Red Bull Case.<br /><br />As for your question, the "use" in relation to goods and services is aiming at the primary "function" of a trademark. Enabling customers to distinguish goods from one another.(5-1a,b TMD) Likelihood of Confusion is the big test here.<br /><br />Article 5-2 TMD, gives some extra protection for Trademarks with a 'repute'. Protecting the 'goodwill' and against Dilution. (not to mention the extra protection in the Benelux for all trademarks). <br /><br />The relation between both: In time diluting use (not per se 'as a mark'), could dilute a trademark in a manner that it is not longer suitable to fulfil its primary function (distinguish). Protecting only against use 'as a mark' is therefore not enough. <br /><br />Hopefully this is helpful.<br /><br /><br />Greeting from The NetherlandsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89670799033209505102012-11-19T18:04:36.183+00:002012-11-19T18:04:36.183+00:00Though it's a bit dated, being published in 20...Though it's a bit dated, being published in 2005, Trade Mark Use, which is funnily enough edited by the original founders of the IPKAT, has a multifaceted view of the meanings of use. It's published by Oxford UP and I guess it must be out of print by now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82417236676658695852012-11-19T17:07:56.433+00:002012-11-19T17:07:56.433+00:00The work quoted by the previous commentator indeed...The work quoted by the previous commentator indeed provides for a good read in this respect.<br /><br />When use is not in relation to goods and services, see Red Bull (case C-119/10) and Google (joined cases C-236/08-C-238/08).<br /><br />"In relation to goods and services" aside, it will be interesting to see how the "adverse effect on the origin function" criterion is applied by national courts in light of Interflora (case C-323/09), or maybe worth developing within the scope of a thesis?<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4807892475420747502012-11-19T07:39:15.038+00:002012-11-19T07:39:15.038+00:00Prof. Dr. jur. Annette Kur takes issue with the “u...Prof. Dr. jur. Annette Kur takes issue with the “use as a mark”-question in Trademark Law and Theory, 2008, pp. 165: her recommendation that the “matter calls for regulatory action” seems to be wise, because it´s all in a mess thanks to the CJEU.<br />Mats Björkenfeldt, Stockholm<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54231478065392299152012-11-19T06:09:14.216+00:002012-11-19T06:09:14.216+00:00Yeah, the ECJ seems to have scrapped that old doct...Yeah, the ECJ seems to have scrapped that old doctrine. <br /><br />(But why's the Nordic (it's a jungle out there, I'm told) student asking things she knows already...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com