A comparative study of the substantive provisions of trademarks with an emphasis on color and three-dimensional marks

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Economy and Administrative Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student of Private Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student of Private Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

To be considered a trademark, symbols and emblems must be missing some situations (negative substantive conditions) and have some conditions (Positive substantive conditions). Non-traditional marks, especially those which are visible such as colors and three-dimensional marks face challenges In order to comply with these conditions. Some declare that such mark are not registerable as they strictly believe trademarks limited to the traditional marks such as letters and numbers and images and they emphasize that non-traditional visual symbols are neither able to meet some essential requirements nor- due to their specific nature- are acceptable as a trademark because of the limited grounds. In contrast, some believe that not only can the symptoms coordinate with the terms of traditional trademark, but also the need to promote such innovation requires support of these signs. In line with the second opinion, it seems that examples of trademarks are only a way to distinguish the origin of goods and persons aand are not limited to traditional marks.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. بادینی، حسن؛ حسین‌زاده، مجید؛ محبی فرد، سمانه (زمستان 1393)،«بررسی نظریه استفاده منصفانه قانونی (کلاسیک) در علائم تجاری توصیفی»، فصلنامۀ پژوهشنامۀ بازرگانی، شمارۀ 73، ص‌99-123.
    2. شمسی، عبدالحمید (پاییز 1382)، حقوق مالکیت بر علائم تجاری و صنعتی، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
    3. صالحی، جواد و مؤمنی تذرجی، احسان (پاییز و زمستان 1394)، «علائم تجاری بویایی: جلوه‌ای نوین در حمایت حقوقی از علائم تجاری»، حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ 12، شمارۀ 12، ص‌307-328.
    4. مؤمنی تذرجی، احسان (1393)، حمایت از علائم غیرسنتی در نظام حقوق علائم تجاری، پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه قم.
    5. میرحسینی، حسن (1390)، حقوق علائم تجاری، بنیاد حقوقی میزان، چاپ اول.
    6.  واصلی رضا (1379)، تجزیه ‌و تحلیل مقررات مربوط به علائم تجاری در حقوق ایران، پایان‌نامۀ دکترای حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم و تحقیقات.

    ب) خارجی

    1. Adachi,Masaru, (2009), {A Lost Decade of 3D Trademark Registration in Japan: Coca-Cola Bottle 3D TM Case}, JAPANESE TRADE ASS’N 3, http://www.jpta.jp/pdf/committee/005/AIPLA2009/2009_CocaCola_Bottle_3D_TM_case.pdf.
    2. e. Compton,Amanda, (2010),{ACQUIRING A FLAVOR FOR TRADEMARKS: THERES NO COMMON TASTE IN THE WORLD}, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Volume 8, Number 3,pp340-359
    3. Jackson, Glenda Labadie, (2008),{Through the looking hole of the multi-sensory trademark rainbow: trademark protection of color per se across jurisdictions: the United States, Spain and the European Union},Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business,pp.91-109
    4. Karapapa, Stavroula, (2010),{REGISTERING SCENTS AS COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS},The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association, Vol. 100, No. 6,pp.1335-1359
    5. KEXIN LI, (2012),{WHERE IS THE RIGHT BALANCE?—EXPLORING THE CURRENTREGULATIONS ON NONTRADITIONAL THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONIN THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CHINA}, LI_MACRO, Vol. 30, No. 2,pp428-475
    6. Kur, Annette, (2009), {Too pretty to protect? Trade mark law and the enigma of aesthetic functionality }, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Research Paper No. 11-16,
    7. M Wongt, Mitchell, (1998),{THE AESTHETIC FUNCTIONALITY DOCTRINE AND THE LAW OF TRADE-DRESS PROTECTION},CORNELL LAW REVIEW, Vol. 83:1116,pp.1117-1165
    8. M. Hammersley, Faye, (1998),{The Smell of Success: Trade Dress Protection for Scent Marks}, arquctte intellectual property law review, 2 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 105, pp. 105-155
    9. m. reimer Erin(2013), {A Semiotic Analysis: Developing a New Standard for Scent Marks}, VANDERBILT J. OF ENT. AND TECH. LAW, Vol. 14:3:693, pp.693-728
    10. N. Palladino,Vincent, (2002), {ASSESSING TRADEMARK SIGNIFICANCE: GENERICNESS, SECONDARY MEANING AND SURVEYS}, Official Journal of the International Trademark Association,Vol. 92 No. 4, pp.857-889
    11. B. Shreman، L. Bently, (2004), Intellectual Property law, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press.
    12. Kudrjavceva,Jekaterina, (2012),issues surrounding registration of colour trade marks,RGSL RESEARCH PAPERS, NO 9.
    13. L. Port,Kenneth, (2010),On Nontraditional Trademarks, LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES Working Paper, No.05
    14. M. Fleck, Lorraine, (2003), What Makes Sense in One Country May Not in Another A Survey of Select Jurisdictions on Scent Mark Registrability & A Critique of Scents as Trade-marks, LL.B. Candidate, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University,
    15. Maria Cristina, Caldarola, (2003), Questions relating to abstract colour trade marks: recent developments in Germany, E.I.P.R. European Intellectual Property Review
    16. MCCARTHY,J. THOMAS, (1984), TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 8:1, (2d ed.1984)
    17. Phillips Jeremy, (2006),Trade Marks at the Limit, Edward Elgar
    18. Shilling, Dana (2002), ESSENTIALS of Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Wiley
    19. T. Oratz, Lisa, (1996), User Interfaces: Copyright vs. Trade Dress Protection, computer Law
    20. http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6957( visited 2014/04/08)
    21. http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6957( visited 2014/07/02)
      1. http://www.people.com.cn/zixun/flfgk/item/dwjjf/falv/7/7-3-01.html(visited 2014/05/01)
      2. http://www.people.com.cn/zixun/flfgk/item/dwjjf/falv/7/7-3-01.html(visited 2014/05/13)
      3. http://www.people.com.cn/zixun/flfgk/item/dwjjf/falv/7/7-3-01.html(visited 2014/06/12)
      4. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp( visited 2014/06/12)

    cases

    1. C-104/01 Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2003] ECR I-03793-para67
      1. C-104/01 Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2003] ECR I-03793-para 12-24
      2. C-48/09 P, Lego Juris A/S v. OHIM, 2010 E.C.R. at ¶ 9 (EUR-Lex).
      3. C-49/02 Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH [2004] ECR I-06129-p60
      4. C-49/02 Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH [2004] ECR I-06129-paras 10-11-14-42
      5. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
        1. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. Inc. 514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248, 63 USLW 4227, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161, U.S. Cal. March 28, 1995 (No 93-1577).
        2. Qualitex Co.v. Jacobson Prods. Co-514 U.S. 159, 173-74; 34 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA)1161, 1167(1995)
        3. Shohyoho [Trademark Act], Law No. 127 of 1959, art. 4 (Japan).
          1. U. S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE November 25, 2013,15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(5)
          2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. 529 U.S. 205, 212 (2000).

     

Comparative Law Review
Volume 7, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2016
Pages 627-646

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics