Signs, surfaces, shapes and structures-the protection of product design under trade mark law

Trademark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 498-522

  Firth, Alison ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890971010     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781848441316.00030     Document Type: Chapter

References (117)

1. Edward Armitage, The Copyright, Patent and Designs Bill: Industrial Designs [1988] EIPR 91; Jeremy
2. Phillips, International Design Protection: Who Needs It? [1993] 12 EIPR 431;
3. H Cohen Jehoram, Cumulation of Protection in the EC Design Proposals: The 1994 Herchel Smith Lecture [1994] 12 EIPR 514;
4. Herman MH Speyart, The Grand Design: An Update on the E.C. Design Proposals, Following the Adoption of a Common Position on the Directive [1997] EIPR 603;
5. Howard Johnson, Communication by Design: Reform of the Law-Cinderella No More [2002] 7 Comms L 52;
6. Charles-Henry Massa & Alain Strowel, Community Design: Cinderella Revamped [2003] EIPR 68. From time to time other aspects are given the epithet, such as performers' rights
7. (Sam Ricketson, reviewing Richard Arnold, Performers' Rights and Recording Rights, at [1991] EIPR 311);
8. (Owen H Dean, Sound Recordings in South Africa-the Cinderella of the Copyright Family (1993) 34 Copyright World 18);
9. (Patrick Wheeler, Copyright-The Cinderella of Construction Agreements (1994) 4 Cons L 447 and (1994) 5 Cons L 27);
10. Jerome H Reichman, Design Protection and the New Technologies: The United States Experience in a Transnational Perspective 19 U. Balt. L. Rev. 6 (1989);
11. Uma Suthersanen, Breaking down the Intellectual Property Barriers [1998] IPQ 267.
12. F. Beier, The Law of Unfair Competition in the European Community: Its Development and Present Status [1985] EIPR 284;
13. Christopher Wadlow, Unfair Competition in Community Law: Part 1: The Age of the "Classical Model" [2006] EIPR 433;
14. Christopher Wadlow, Unfair Competition in Community Law: Part 2: Harmonisation Becomes Gridlocked [2006] EIPR 469.
15. As for example s 51 of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as applied in BBC Worldwide Ltd and Another v Pally Screen Printing Ltd and Others [1998] FSR 665;
16. see Geert Glas, The Cumulative Protection of Benelux Designs by Copyright and Design Law: Screenoprints Ltd v Citroen Nederland BV [1989] EIPR 257.
17. Jane C Ginsburg & June M Besek, eds, Adjuncts and Alternatives to Copyright: Proceedings of the ALAI Congress June 13-17, 2001 (2002, ALAI-USA).
18. Wally Olins, Who's Wearing the Trousers? The Economist, 6 September 2001. If this is correct then the spread of non-verbal marks may make this process available to a wider range of citizens.
19. See Martin Lindstrom, Brand Sense: Building Powerful Brands through Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight and Sound (2005, New York, The Free Press);
20. Lionel Bently & Leo Flynn, eds, Law and the Senses: Sensational Jurisprudence (1996, Pluto Press, London). Vaver has commented on an expansionist trend in trade mark law;
21. David Vaver, Recent Trends in European Trademark Law: Of Shape, Senses and Sensation (2005) 95 TMR 895. For a US slant on the expansion of trade mark protection
22. see Dana Beldiman, Protecting the Form But Not the Function: Is U.S. Law Ready For a New Model? (2004) 20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech LJ 529.
23. See Thomas P. Arden, Protection of Non-Traditional Marks: trademark rights in sounds, scents, colors, motions and product designs in the U.S. (2000, New York: INTA).
24. Martin Schloteltburg, Design Protection for Technical Products (2006) JIPLP 675.
25. Coupled with opportunistic litigation: Graeme B. Dinwoodie, General Report, Session IIA Copyright, Trademarks and Trade Dress: The Overlap (and Conflict?) in Intellectual Property Regimes Concerning Designs and Visual Images
26. Jane C Ginsberg & June M Besek, eds, Adjuncts and Alternatives to Copyright: Proceedings of the ALAI Congress June 13-17, 2001 (2002, ALAI-USA) 497 at 504.
27. J H Reichman, Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, 94 Columbia L Rev 2432-558 (1994);
28. J. H. Reichman, Charting the Collapse of the Patent-Copyright Dichotomy: Premises for a Restructured International Intellectual Property System, 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ 475-520 (1995).
29. Uma Suthersanen, Breaking Down the Intellectual Property Barriers [1998] IPQ 267.
30. Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (1996, Aldershot, Dartmouth).
31. Celia Lury, Cultural Rights: Technology, Legality and Personality (1993, Routledge).
32. Spyros Maniatis, Trade Mark Rights-A Justification Based On Property [2002] IPQ 123.
33. See Milton Handler, A Personal Note on Trademark and Unfair Competition Law before the Lanham Act (1996) 59 Law & Contemp Probs 5-11.
34. Megan Richardson, Copyright In Trade Marks? On Understanding Trade Mark Dilution [2000] IPQ 66.
35. see James Mitchiner, Intellectual Property In Image-A Mere Inconvenience [2003] IPQ 163.
36. Alexander Lovelady, Masters thesis, University of Durham, 2006, citing 'Economics A-Z: Revealed preference', at http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic. cfm? LETTER=R#REVEALED%20PREFERENCE.
37. Such as Wally Olins, devisor of the ORANGE brand for mobile telephony.
38. Graeme B Dinwoodie, The Death of Ontology: A Teleological Approach to Trademark Law (1999) 84 Iowa L. Rev. 611.
39. See Jerome Gilson & Anne Gilson Lalande, Cinnamon Buns, Marching Ducks and Cherry-Scented Racecar Exhaust: Protecting Non-traditional Trademarks (2005) 95 TMR 773 at 813-16
40. see Barbara Rubin, Aesthetic Ideology andUrban Design (1979) 69 Ann Assoc Am Geog 339.
41. The case of Systemhus Norge A/S and Others v Varmbohus A/S [1994] FCC 137 involved misappropriation of an architectural design.
42. see, e.g. Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 129;
43. Robert Burrell, Huw Beverley Smith & Allison Coleman, Three-dimensional Trade Marks: Should the Directive be Reshaped? in Norma Dawson & Alison Firth, eds, Trade Marks Retrospective (Vol 7, Perspectives on Intellectual Property, 2000, Sweet & Maxwell).
44. Art 295 of the EC Treaty provides that it is without prejudice to national systems of property ownership, which discourages the legislator from diminishing intellectual property rights.
45. See Hannes Rosler, The Rationale for European Trade Mark Protection [2007] EIPR 100 at n74.
46. See Marie-Christine Janssens, The "Toblerone" Chocolate Bar Case In Belgium [2004] EIPR 554.
47. Burrell et al. at 162.
48. Which narrowed towards the top, with an integral handle, a small pouring aperture and a two-level stopper, which could also be used as a measuring cup.
49. Philips v Remington, n. 48 at para [AG34].
50. The authority of the A-G's opinion and of this line of argument have been doubted by Suthersanen. Uma Suthersanen The European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington-Trade Marks and Market Freedom [2003] IPQ 257.
51. In Koninklijke Philips NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2006] F.S.R. 30 at [93] the English Court of Appeal stressed the need to prevent the impairment of competition by the registration of shape marks incorporating technical solutions or functional characteristics.
52. Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral & David Rogers, The Protection of Shapes by the Community Trade Mark [2003] EIPR 169.
53. Case R 856/2004-G [2007] ETMR 11 (OHIM) at para. [34] in relation to the exclusion of functional shape marks from Community Trade Mark protection.
54. See Thomas P Arden Protection of Non-Traditional Marks: Trademark Rights in Sounds, Scents, Colors, Motions and Product Designs in the U.S. (2000, New York, INTA), at 183.
55. For many years Mr Justice Kitchen was an editor of the trade mark practitioner's bible Kerly on Trade Marks.
56. Benneton Group SpA v G-Star International BV (C-371/06) [2008] ETMR 5.
57. Hoge Raad, 8 September 2006;
58. see Charles Gielen, Netherlands: Trade marks-shape marks [2006] EIPR N237.
59. Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral and David Rogers, The Protection of Shapes by the Community Trade Mark [2003] EIPR 169.
60. See e.g. (bottle shape with lemon in neck) Eurocermex [2005] ETMR 95 ECJ.
61. See e.g. (stand-up pouches) Deutsche SiSi Werke v OHIM C173/04P [2006] ETMR 41 ECJ.
62. T-190/04 Freixenet SA v OHIM [2006] ECR II-79.
63. Alexander Gonzalez, Feel the Difference-German Federal Supreme Court Provides some Guidance on Registrability of Tactile Mark [2007] 36(7) CIPAJ 402.
64. Section 46(1)(c) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, corresponding to Art 12 of the Directive and Art 51 of the CTM Regulation, refers to the "common name in the trade".
65. In Bongrain SA's Trade Mark Application [2004] EWCA Civ 1690, [2005] ETMR 47;
66. The relevant public may vary according to the type of good or service for which registration is sought.
67. Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions-und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots-und Segelzubehör Walter Huber (Joined Cases C-108 and 109/97) [2000] Ch 523, 555.
68. On the problems of survey evidence in the UK courts, see Gary Lea, Masters of All They Survey? Some Thoughts upon Official Attitudes to Market Survey Evidence in U.K. Trade Mark Practice [1999] IPQ 191.
69. T-15/05 Wim De Waele v OHIM 31 May 2006 (CFI).
70. T-360/03 Frischpack GmbH v OHIM 23 November 2004 (CFI).
71. Uma Suthersanen, The European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington-Trade Marks and Market Freedom [2003] IPQ 257.
72. Gillette Co v LA Laboratories Ltd OY [2005] FSR 37 ECJ, (citing Hag, Merz & Krell, Arsenal v Reed).
73. Although in the flexible net-bag case the OHIM Board of Appeal took the view that stability of shape was not essential. See Board of Appeal Decision R 820/1999-3, 14 November 2000
74. The not-a-sign argument had been used in Philips v Remington [1998] RPC 283 at 298.
75. Another example of a concept mark, British Airways' use of decorative art work in the corporate livery on the tail fins of aircraft, seems to have suffered from unpopularity rather than legal challenge.
76. Echoing the comments of Patten J in Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2003] EWHC 1062;
77. Advocate General's opinion at 97.
78. Advocate General's opinion at 95-96.
79. At [34], citing Heidelburger Bauchemie [2004] ECR I-6129 at [24], a case concerning the colours blue and yellow.
80. [2007] ETMR 30 Case I ZR 37/04 Bundesgerichtshof, Germany.
81. Yukis Yagyu, 'Protection of Three-dimensional Trademarks in Japan', Yuasa and Hara Intellectual Property News, August 2007, 22, p. 1 at 3.
82. Under ss 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 USC §§1051, 1052 and 1127.
83. Pub L No 105-330, §201, 112 Stat 3064, 3069, effective from 30 October 1998.
84. 15 USC §1064(3).
85. 5 USC §1115(b)(8).
86. See Dinwoodie, Death of Ontology, at 686, 694.
87. 514 US 159, 164, 34 USPQ 2d 1161, 1163 (1995).
88. Gerard N Magliocca, Ornamental Design and Incremental Innovation (2003) 86 Marq L Rev 845.
89. See also Mark Alan, Thurmon: The Rise and Fall of Trademark Law's Functionality Doctrine (2004) 56 Fla L Rev 243.
90. Qualitex, 514 US 165;
91. Brunswick Corp v British Seagull Ltd, 35 F3d 1527 (Fed Cir 1994);
92. M-5 Steel Mfg, Inc. v O'Hagin's Inc, 61 USPQ 2d 1086 (TTAB 2001).
93. 369 F3d 1197 (2004).
94. J Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks, para 7.91, citing In Re Mogen David Wine Corp 328 F2d 925, 140 USPQ 575 (CCRA 1964).
95. Karen Feisthamel, Amy Kelly & Johanna Sistek (2005), Trade Dress 101: Best Practices for the Registration of Product Configuration Trade Dress with the USPTO 95 TMR 137 providing fascinating tables of product configurations registered for food products, furniture and furnishings and musical instruments.
96. 231 U.S.P.Q. 926 (TTAB 1986).
97. 311 F. supp 2d 690 (M.D. Tenn 2004).
98. T-317/05, Kustom Musical Amplification, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market [2007] ERMTR 72.
99. see Thomas P Arden, Protection of Non-Traditional Marks: Trademark Rights in Sounds, Scents, Colors, Motions and Product Designs in the U.S. (2000, New York, INTA) 109-12.
100. 653 F 2d 822 (3d Cir 1981).
101. 58 F 3d 1498 (10th Cir 1995).
102. TrafFix Devices, Inc v Marketing Displays, Inc, 532 U.S. 23, 34-5 (2001).
103. Thomas P Arden, Protection of Non-traditional Marks: Trademark Rights in Sounds, Scents, Colors, Motions and Product Designs in the U.S. (2000, New York, INTA) 112-13.
104. As in Re Schafer Machine Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q. 170 (TTAB 1984).
105. Daniel A Valenzuela, Can an Inventor Continue Protecting an Expired Patented Product Via Trade Dress Protection? (2005) 81 N.D. L. Rev. 145.
106. Para. 1202.02(a)(v)(B) (Advertising, Promotional or Explanatory Material in Functionality Determinations.)
107. Linde (Directive Art 23(1)(b)); Mag (Regulation Art 7(1)(b)).
108. (2005) 37 CPR (4th ed.) 559 (TM0B).
109. [2005] 3 SCR 302.
110. Section 7 of the Trade Marks Act 1985 Act merely codified the law of passing off.
111. Case C-249/99 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2001] RPC 38, Advocate General, [2003] RPC 2, ECJ, [2002] ECR I-5475;
112. [2002] ETMR 81 ECJ.
113. Case T283/04 (Unreported, 17 January 2007) (CFI). See case comment by Katharine Stephens & Zoe Fuller at (2007) 36 CIPAJ 91.
114. Which can be roughly translated as "super absorbent thanks to its special embossing."
115. High Court, 16 December 2004, noted at (2006) 180 TMR 486.
116. IP and IT Court, No. 38-41/2547, noted at (2006) 96 TMR 530.
117. Translation thanks to (2007) 22 Yusara and Hara IP News 1.