IICJ Paper Functions of a Trademark- a way of seeing life? Nina Barzey, IP lawyer, Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, Sweden

In certain situations, the trademark owner cannot base a claim against an infringer on the fact that the essential function of the trademark has been impaired. There are situations as we shall see where a defendant is using an identical trademark on identical goods but where there is no confusion as to the commercial origin of the goods. Traditionally, it has been thought that it is only the essential function indicating commercial origin that deserves protection. Hence, if the defendant is successful in a defence that such essential function has not been affected, the trademark owner is left with no remedy. Where the earlier trademark also has an extended protection as a reputed trademark, it is especially pertinent to find a way of ensuring protection to prevent dilution of such reputed trademark. The significance of creating a legal system that recognises the purposes of a trademark is of paramount importance in today’s ever expanding global commercial environment. The Commission has recognised this and has declared that “Europe depends on powerful brands. This requires strong trade mark protection that is effective against improper licensing, non-use, or infringements”. This article will explore the possibilities of protecting reputed trademarks in light of developments in case law. The focus of this article is on the legal provisions on double identity and the protection afforded to trademarks with extended protection as they are related in that they both seek to safeguard the investment in promotion and neither require proof of likelihood of confusion under the legal provisions. In deed, in the Google decision, the Attorney General (“AG”) arranged the protection concerned with promotion, innovation and investment on a sliding scale giving the protection for reputed marks under Article 5(2) of the Trademark Directive (the “Directive”) the highest rank as the best protection. The double identity provision under Article 5(1)(a) secured a good second place and 5(1)(b) in the last place with the weakest protection having to prove likelihood of confusion. Further, recitals 2 and 4 of the Directive explain that the intention of the Directive is to ensure the harmonisation of the functioning of the internal market in respect of the substantive law.
Author
Nina Barzey
Nina Barzey is a Swedish national practising in Sweden as a lawyer. She pursued her formal academic legal training in England (LLB honours) (PLC) and qualified as an English solicitor with the city firm Bird & Bird, London. At Bird & Bird she specialised in competition law and went on secondments at BT (competition law) and Bird & Bird's Brussels office. She then took up employment in Sweden at the multinational company Sandvik Intellectual Property AB (SIP). SIP is a subsidiary in the Sandvik concern, especially dealing with intellectual (IP) property matters. In her work as a lawyer she deals with trademark law as well as other intellectual property rights and market law.
Company
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB is a company specialising in IP matters including lawyers and technical engineers. Sandvik consists of different business areas; mining and construction, tooling, materials technology and recently medical technology in the field of steel. Sandvik has businesses in 130 countries and employ about 50 000 employees.
Country
Sweden More
Area of Law
Intellectual Property More
Business Sector
Industry More
Month Published
September 2010 More
Edition
Vol. 3, No. 12, Summer 2010 More
    Go back to Library Search