Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abolition of Graphical Representation in EU Trademark Directive: Should Countries with Similar Provisions Follow EU’s Footsteps?


Affiliations
1 School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong
 

Since the graphical representation requirement for trademark registration was abolished in the European Union, the need to critically appraise its effect on the registration of Non-Traditional Marks has become necessary. The question as to whether or not countries with similar provisions for graphical representation in their trademark laws should follow in the footsteps of the European Union has also become relevant. This paper critically evaluates the effect of the removal of the graphical representation requirement on the registration of olfactory, tactile and gustatory marks by offering arguments, examples and legal authorities to support its view. The paper found that even though the EU has recently relaxed the graphical representation requirement, this step makes very little practical difference to the registrability of olfactory, tactile and gustatory marks. The reason for the said category of mark’s failure to satisfy the graphical representation requirement prior to its abolition still persists under the revised EU registration system. In this regard, the paper concludes that the changes brought about by the EU Trademark Reform Package are more cosmetic than substantive with regard to the registration of olfactory tactile and gustatory marks.

Keywords

European Union Trademark Directive, TRIPS, WTO, EU Trademark Registry, Trademark Registration, Graphical Representation Requirement, Non-traditional Trademark, Non-visually Perceptible Signs, Representative Registration, Olfactory Marks, Gustatory Marks, Tactile Marks.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bently L & Brad S, Intellectual Property Law, Fourth ed., Oxford University Press, 2014, 148-1157.

  • Article 15 (1), TRIPS Agreement.

  • Section 3 of Hong Kong Trade Marks Ordinance, Section 40 of the Trade Marks Act of Australia, Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act of Canada, Section 5 of Trademarks Act of New Zealand, Section 2(1) of the Trade Marks Act of Singapore all provide for the requirement of graphical representation for signs sought to be registered as a trademark.

  • Trade Marks Legislations of People’s Republic of China, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Peru etc. do not contain express provisions for graphical representation requirement, however, it can be implied that signs are meant to be visually represented in the Trade Mark Register.

  • Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (CTMR).

  • Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches, Patent- und Markenamt, Case C-273/00, (2002) ECR I – 117377.

  • Jacob B, The Removal of the Requirement for Graphical Representation of EU Trade Marks, The Impact of the Amending Trade Mark Regulation, Orebro Universitet, Sweden 2016.

  • Arka M, Subhojit S & Sunandan M, The requirement of graphical representability for non-conventional trademarks, Journal of intellectual property Rights, 11 (2006) 313-317.

  • 10th Recital of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trade Mark (codification).

  • Neha M, Registration of non-traditional trademarks, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 13 (2008) 43-50.

  • Stefano S & Sergio R, Non-Conventional Trademarks and Community Law, Marques, Thurmaston, 2003, 45-65.

  • Gustavo G & Giovanni C, On the scope of protection of renowned trademarks, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 8 (4) (2018) 273–289.

  • Irene C, Chocolate, Fashion, Toys and Cabs: The Misunderstood Distinctiveness of Non-Traditional Trademarks, IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 1 (2018) 49.

  • John Lewis of Hungerford Ltd’s trade mark application [2001] R.P.C. 28.

  • Eli Lilly/The taste of artificial strawberry flavor, R 120//2001 – 2 (2004) ETMR (4) 59 (OHIM Board of Appeal).

  • EC, proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Approximate the Laws of the member state relating to Trade Marks (March 2013) COD (2013) 162 final, ‘Explanatory Memorandum’, point 5.

  • Max Planck Institute, Study on the Overall Functioning of the Community Trade Mark System, 2010.

  • Article 3 (1) EUTMIR.

  • 10th Recital of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 Of The European Parliament and of The Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trade Mark (codification).

  • Yaroslava K, Non-Traditional Trade Marks and the Abolition of the Requirement For - EU Trade Mark Registration Process (Stockholm University) 2018, 14-18.

  • Trevor C, European Union Trademark Law and its proposed revision, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2013) 283.

  • Corcoran C, Scope and validity of nontraditional trademarks in the EU: Some recent developments, INTA Bulletin, 70 (9) (2015) 1-4.

  • EUIPO Guidelines, Part B, Examination, 33.

  • Vaver D, Recent trends in European Trademark Law: Of shape, senses and sensation, Trademark Representative, 895 (2005) 95

  • Danny F, EU opens door for sound marks: Will scent marks follow? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10 (2015) 931.

  • EUIPO Guidelines, Part B, Examination, 27.

  • Eli Lilly, Case R- 120/2001-2 (4 August 2003) (OHIM BA) 78.

  • George L, Trademark Law in the computer age: Applying trademark principles to the look and feel software, Journal of Patent & Trademark Office Society, (1995) 415-468,

  • Hockmuth C, Coming to TV Screens of the Future: A Sense of Smell, University of California, San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering, 2011, 1-2.

  • Kim, H, Park, J, Noh, K, Gardner, C, Deok K, Seong, K & Jongmin, J, An X–Y addressable matrix odor-releasing system using an On–Off Switchable Device, Angewandte Chemie, 30 (50) (2011) 6771-6775.

  • Article 7(1)(e) European Union Trade Mark Regulation.

  • The Amendment is pursuant to the regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament.

  • Article 7 (3) European Union Trade Mark Regulation.


Abstract Views: 194

PDF Views: 105




  • Abolition of Graphical Representation in EU Trademark Directive: Should Countries with Similar Provisions Follow EU’s Footsteps?

Abstract Views: 194  |  PDF Views: 105

Authors

Tolulope Anthony Adekola
School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong

Abstract


Since the graphical representation requirement for trademark registration was abolished in the European Union, the need to critically appraise its effect on the registration of Non-Traditional Marks has become necessary. The question as to whether or not countries with similar provisions for graphical representation in their trademark laws should follow in the footsteps of the European Union has also become relevant. This paper critically evaluates the effect of the removal of the graphical representation requirement on the registration of olfactory, tactile and gustatory marks by offering arguments, examples and legal authorities to support its view. The paper found that even though the EU has recently relaxed the graphical representation requirement, this step makes very little practical difference to the registrability of olfactory, tactile and gustatory marks. The reason for the said category of mark’s failure to satisfy the graphical representation requirement prior to its abolition still persists under the revised EU registration system. In this regard, the paper concludes that the changes brought about by the EU Trademark Reform Package are more cosmetic than substantive with regard to the registration of olfactory tactile and gustatory marks.

Keywords


European Union Trademark Directive, TRIPS, WTO, EU Trademark Registry, Trademark Registration, Graphical Representation Requirement, Non-traditional Trademark, Non-visually Perceptible Signs, Representative Registration, Olfactory Marks, Gustatory Marks, Tactile Marks.

References