Legal Importance and Functions of Trademarks
Introduction
Trademarks are important for determining the history, age and value of a product. It is a valuable asset because that’s how customers recognize your product or service.
Trademarks have been around for a long time. A trademark seems to assist communication between the customer and a trader of both goods and services. They can be defined as a tool or a badge used for commercial and business purposes by a trader or merchant to identify his goods and services and to differentiate them from other competitors in the market[1]. According to Section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, a trademark can be defined as: “any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings”[2]. Trademarks are considered to be one of the most valued commercial assets for a corporation or a business enterprise[3]. They play a significant part in the merchandising of products and services[4]. They can be recognized by symbols and are words or logos[5].
There are a number of International Treaties agreed upon by a number of nations, which seem to provide a protective shield for trademark owner’s in order to protect their trademarks[6]. There are four most significant treaties which seem to protect and safeguard the international protection to trademarks[7]. These are namely, the Paris Convention[8], the Madrid Agreement[9], the Trademark Law Treaty[10] and the General Agreement on Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property[11](TRIPS)[12].
One of the most important aspects regarding trademarks is their protection. If trademarks are properly protected, only then they will be able to fulfil their required functions. There are a number of international and national legislation which seem to provide a legal covering in protection of trademarks. If we consider the position of UK, in past trademarks were granted protection under both the statue and common law[13]. At present the UK trade mark law is regulated by the Trade Marks Act 1994[14], which was passed in order to bring the UK legislation in line with the provisions of the EU Directive (EEC) 89/104[15]. The EU Directive (EEC) 89/104 however has now been repealed and replaced[16] by the Directive 2008/95/EC[17].
A trademark is considered to be of vital importance for a business organisation particularly in respect to their organisation image. In recent years it has been seen that the use of trademarks and importance given to them has significantly increased[18].
Functions of Trademarks
The functions or key role of trademarks depends upon the uses it has. It has been noted that there has been a considerable progress in the use of trademarks in recent years[19]. There has been an immense debate regarding what functions trademarks serve[20]. A number of academic commentators have approached the subject of the functions of trademarks and have categorised these functions of trademarks under two basic broad headings[21], as the traditional approach and secondly the modern approach[22]. The traditional idea has been that the function of trademarks is to serve as an indicator of the origin of goods and service. This is considered to be the primary and most important function of trademarks[23]. The modern approach is to guarantee the quality[24]. With the increasing technology and development of media, the importance of trademarks has significantly increased and they now seem to serve a wider range of functions.
To Act as a Badge of Origin
To Act as a badge of origin is considered to be the primary and central function of trademarks[25]. This function is protected by both the Directive and all national Legislation[26]. The European Court of Justice however, has attached great importance to this function[27]. It was first recognized by the European Court of Justice in the early case of Canon[28], where the court stated that the fundamental function of a trademark is to guarantee and signify the identity of the origin of a product in order to enable a person, differentiate the particular product or service from others in the market[29].
This view was further confirmed by the European Court of Justice in its well-known decision of Arsenal V Reed[30]. Here the Court stated[31] :
“the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of origin of the marked goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin[32].”
Thus it can be perceived that the essential function of trademarks is to assure the badge of origin of product and services, and differentiate them from the product and services of other competitors in the market[33]. The significance of this function of providing assurance or guarantee to the identity or badge of origin ensures the interests and benefits of both the proprietor and consumer[34]. Firstly, it safeguards the proprietor’s trademark as it prohibits any similar and identical use of any such sign by its competitors in the market, who seem to take the wrong advantage of the position and repute of the proprietor’s trademark[35]. Secondly it seems to protect the consumer as it enables him to distinguish products, services or goods in the market without any confusion and makes him reach a decision easily as what to purchase[36]. The variety of signs used for identity of products and services also facilitates the consumer in a manner as it supplies information regarding the product or service in a suitable symbolic manner[37]. Thus this badge of origin which is the primary function of trademarks can only be guaranteed, if it is protected and secured from exploitation from third parties or against competitors who misuse or abuse the name and position of the trademark for their own personal and commercial purposes and thereby illegally trading their own products[38].
It has also been, stated in the 10th Recital[39] of the Directive 89/104[40] that, it is the essential function of trademark to guarantee and offer protection to the origin and identity between the mark and the sign and goods or services[41]. The entire purpose is to guarantee and certify that the trademark is as an indicator of origin[42].
It is apparent that the guarantee of badge of origin is the most essential of all functions of trademarks and this seems to be reflected in a recent European Court of Justice Verdict in the case of Adam Opel V Autec[43]. In this case, the Court emphasised on the point that a trademark bestows an absolute right on the proprietor, and protects his products or services from being illegally used by his competitors and third parties[44]. The Court’s stance in this case makes it clear that such right is given to assure that the trademarks function, to guarantee the origin of goods and services to the customers is attained[45]. Thus in the above case the Court held that when Autec used Opel’s logo it is prohibited to do so, as this seemed to affect and infringe the functions of trademark.
The current approach which the courts are taking in defining the function of trademark is not just only to identify the origin of goods and services but also that such origin should be commercial in nature in order for it to qualify as a trademark. This can be seen in the Court of First Instance case in Danjaq LLC V OHIM[46] . The court specified that the essential function of trademarks is to classify the commercial origin of goods and services[47]. In the present case the Proprietor claim failed that the signs used by them were used as trademarks as the signs used should have a commercial characteristic[48].
Distinguishing Function
For a trademark to fulfil its essential guarantee of origin function, it is important that the trademark must be distinctive[49]. The central purpose of this function is to eradicate any confusion and uncertainty in regard to the product and services for the consumers. This limits the variety of signs to be registered as trademarks and their protection[50]. As long as the trademark remains distinctive it will be granted protection under law[51]. If the trademark fails or is not competent enough to further perform its function, it will no longer be protected under the law and will be refused of registration[52].
This function has also been recognised by the court as an essential function of trademarks in conjunction with the guarantee of origin function. This can be seen in the case of Hoffman La Roche & Co[53] , where the Court stated:
“The Essential function of the Trademark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the Trademarked Product to the Consumer or ultimate user, by enabling him without any possibility of confusion to distinguish that product from products which have another origin[54].”
An example of this can be seem in a more recent case of Celine Sarl V Celine SA[55] , where the European Court of Justice stated that the purpose of a shop name did not distinguish the goods and services[56]. Thus distinctiveness is therefore considered to be central and the key element to be considered with regards to the functions of trademark to guarantee the identity of the origin. Thus in the Bio ID Case[57] the European Court of Justice held that the distinctiveness of the trademark should be assessed and if any mark lacks such distinctiveness it should be deprived of registration as a trademark in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) Council Regulation (EC) No40/94[58].
There are other essential functions of trademarks as well which seem to be directly associated with the trademark function as to the guarantee of origin is to guarantee the quality of the goods and services[59].
To Guarantee Quality of Products
Customers prefer to select those trademarks which are known for its quality, and thus trademarks help the customers to make decisions as to the products they purchase[60]. This function appeared more in picture after the Industrial Revolution and Technological Changes when customers starting placing more emphasis and attention to the quality of the products.
Reputation is the key to trademarks. It is believed that customers make use of trademarks to choose and identify products recognized for their quality which they have used[61]. If the customers had a good experience with the product, then in future they will prefer using the product of the same trademark and will purchase it and it will be believe to be of the same quality that they have used previously[62]. If this is the case then it will be anticipated that products traded under this trademark will be of the same high-quality[63].
In Arsenal Football Club V Reed[64], the Advocate General held that the mark will not only classify the origin and identify of a distinguishing mark but also it will indicate its quality and repute[65].
Advocate General Jacobs has made reference to the function of trademark in guaranteeing the quality of products and is of the view that trademark owners seems to give the impression, that they are able to encourage customers that all the products produced and traded under the same trademark have the same uniform quality as they have been produced by the same manufacturer[66]. This guarantee of quality is unqualified. The possibility of threat is for the manufacturers as he will have to bear the penalty if the quality declines and this will turn to be positive for his competitors[67]. There is a strong debate on the guarantee of quality function. There is no legal system or a scheme to ensure that the proprietor will use the trademark on products having the same quality. If he uses the same trademark on lower quality products there is no law to place an injunction him, to refrain him from doing so, the only consequence he will suffer will be losing customers[68].
The quality function of trademarks was also recognised by the European Court of Justice in the L’Oreal Bellure case[69]. In this case the court not only recognized the significance to provide assurance of quality of product and services but also recognised three other functions of trademarks namely, the advertisement function, the communication function and finally the investment function[70].
Advertising Function
Since the Industrial Revolution and Technological Changes came about, it is mainly due to advertisements that reputations have been maintained[71]. Another significant function of trademarks is that they are very constructive in promoting product and services and thus provide an effective mode of advertising[72].
Through advertising the proprietor can convey to the public a degree of satisfaction for the products and services used by the trademark. The proprietor’s make use of the advertising function by providing vital and extra information to its customers for purchases[73]. Frank Schechter has referred to this advertisement function as “silent salesman”[74]. The idea behind the use of trademarks is to make customers aware and attract their attention. Through the use of advertisements, the idea behind the use trademark to attract customers seems to be significantly fulfilled and this reinforces the image of the product.
An example of the use of trademarks for the purpose of advertising to facilitate trade can be seen in the European Court of Justice Case of Google France V Louis Vuitton Malletier [75]. In this case the proprietor used a keyword for a referencing service for his advertisement, which initiated his ad and thus was used for the purpose of trade in light of Article 5(1) Of Directive 89/104[76]. The Court stated that the fundamental issue was not that the trademark of the third party appeared in the advertisement but the title or the label was identical to that of the third party trademark in sponsored links advertisements[77]. For identical products for which the marks are protected is considered to be the use of that trademark[78].
It was observed by the Chief Justice, that product and services of the trademark proprietor are noticeable by internet client despite the fact of any advertisements or links also displayed at the same time[79]. The conclusion reached in this case was further confirmed in the BergSpechte Case[80].
The same issue came up before the European Court Of Justice, in the case of Portakabin Ltd, Portakabin BV V Primakabin BV[81], where the same issue was raised as to whether a keyword similar to a third party trademark trade for internet referencing service amounts to use in light of Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive 2008/95/EC[82]. The Court held that in relation to the function of advertisements, as it had earlier stated that use of such words will have no adverse effect on the trademark function on advertisements[83].
In a recent case, of Interflora V Marks and Spencer[84], the Court clarified the situation as to whether Marks and Spencer had breached and damaged the functions of trademark when it used the Google referencing service and the keywords used were similar to those of its competitor Interflora[85]. The European Court of Justice held that the Proprietor of the trademark can forbid its competitor from using an identical keyword for advertising where such a use is likely to have an adverse effect on the trademark functions[86].
Investment Function
In the case of L’Oreal Bellure[87] the Court recognised the investment function of trademarks[88]. The proprietor of the trademark had made considerable investment in the trademarks for perfumes. The proprietor was seeking to protect his trademark against cheap ‘smell alike products’.
Finally in Interflora V Marks and Spencer[89] the Court had taken into account the protection of the investment function of a trademark[90]. When a competitor exploits a symbol identical to that of the proprietor, this has an adverse effect on the trademark function. When such a use hinders the proprietor in using his trademark to obtain the reputation required draw customers and preserve their loyalty[91].
Conclusion
A variety of functions of trademarks have been acknowledged, but none are perfect and there seems to be many flaws in them. Not all functions are even universally recognised. A trademark which does not serve its primary function, which is the indication of origin should not under any circumstances be regarded as a trademark. Some functions of trademarks are extremely controversial. The function of trademarks to guarantee quality has been long debated for, as there is no legal framework which will guarantee that the quality of products and services are maintained by the proprietor.
[1] William J. Keating, ‘Development Of Evidence To Support Color-Based Tr adeMarks’(1989) Journal of Law and Commerce‹http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlac9&div=6&g_sent=1&collection=journals› accessed 6 February 2012
[2]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/1
[3] Tanya Aplin and Jennifer Davis, Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials(1st edn, OUP 2009)
[4] Tanya Aplin and Jennifer Davis, Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials(1st edn, OUP 2009)
[5] Paul Rodgers and Alex Milton Product Design ‹http://www.theurbanant.com/pdf/proddes.pdf›
[6] E. Brooke Brinkerhoff, ‘International Protection of U.S Trademarks: A Survey Of Major International Treaties’ Richmond Journal Of Global Law and Business [Vol.2:1]
[7]E. Brooke Brinkerhoff, ‘International Protection of U.S Trademarks: A Survey Of Major International Treaties’ Richmond Journal Of Global Law and Business [Vol.2:1]
[8] Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883)
[9] Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks 1891, revised on 14 December 1900, on 2 June at Washington, 1911, on 6 November 1925 at The Hague , on 2 June 1934 at London, on 15 June 1957 at Nice, and on 14 July 1967 at Stockholm , and as amended on 28 September 1979
[10] The Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) adopted on 2 October 27, 1994 in Geneva
[11] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) came into force on 1 January 1995
[12]E. Brooke Brinkerhoff, ‘International Protection of U.S Trademarks: A Survey Of Major International Treaties’ Richmond Journal Of Global Law and Business [Vol.2:1]
[13]Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[14] Jennifer Davis, ‘Intellectual Property Law’ (Nicola Padfield 3rd Edn, OUP,2008)
[15] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[16] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[17] Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008
[18] Catherine Colston and Kirsty Middleton, ‘Modern Intellectual Property Law’(2nd Edition 2005 Cavendish Publishing)
[19] Catherine Colston and Kirsty Middleton, ‘Modern Intellectual Property Law’(2nd Edition 2005 Cavendish Publishing)
[20] Tobias Cohen Jehoram, Constant Van Nispen, J. L. R. A Huydecoper, European trademark law: community trademark law and harmonized national trademark law (Kluwer Law International, 2010)
[21] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[22] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[23] Mohammad Amin Naser, ‘ Re-Examining the Functions of Trademark Law’ (2008) Journal of Intellectual Property ‹http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jointpro8&div=6&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults › accessed 11 February 2012
[24] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[25] Mohammad Amin Naser, ‘ Re-Examining the Functions of Trademark Law’ (2008) Journal of Intellectual Property ‹http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jointpro8&div=6&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults › accessed 11 February 2012
[26] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[27] Tobias Cohen Jehoram, Constant Van Nispen, J. L. R. A Huydecoper, European trademark law: community trademark law and harmonized national trademark law (Kluwer Law International, 2010)
[28] Canon Kabushiki Kaisha V MGM, Case C-39/97,[1998]
[29] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[30] Arsenal Football Club v Matthew Reed [2003] RPC 39, [2003] 3 All ER 865
[31] Arsenal Football Club v Matthew Reed [2003] RPC 39, [2003] 3 All ER 865
[32] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001J0206:EN:NOT
[33] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[34] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[35] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[36] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[37] Christiana Aristidou, ‘Cyprus: Trade Mark Infringement on The Internet: Current Issues And Concerns In Europe (Sponsored Links, Search Engines And Shopping On The Internet) – Part 1’ (20 December 2011) ‹http://www.mondaq.com/x/157742/Trademark/Trade+Mark+Infringement+On+The+Internet+Current+Issues+And+Concerns+In+Europe› accessed 10 February 2012
[38] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001J0206:EN:NOT
[39] 1Oth Recital of the Directive 89/104/EEC
[40] Directive 89/104 has now been repealed by Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 which came into force on 28 November 2008.
[41] http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0487:EN:HTML
[42] http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0487:EN:HTML
[43] Case C- 48/05, Adam Opel AG V Autec AG (2007) ETMR 35
[44] http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-48/05
[45] http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-48/05
[46] Danjaq (Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 30 June, 2009, Case T-435/05)
[47] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2009-06/cp090057en.pdf
[48] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2009-06/cp090057en.pdf
[49] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[50] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[51] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[52] Amanda Michaels and Andrew Norris, ‘A Practical Approach to Trademark Law’(4th Edition OUP 2010)
[53] Hoffmann La Roche & Co. AG V Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse MbH (Judgement of the Court of 23 May 1978)
[54]http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=61977J0102
[55] Case C-17/06
[56] Po Jen Yap, ‘ Essential Function of a Trademark: from BMW TO O2’ (2009)European Intellectual Property Review ‹https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=rl&srguid=ia744d0650000013574e01ef2ed6b572b&docguid=I541C61E0C8CD11DD9D2DA47FCA5E36C6&hitguid=I541C61E0C8CD11DD9D2DA47FCA5E36C6&spos=1561&epos=1561&td=3739&crumb-action=append&context=71&resolvein=true › accessed 1 February 2012
[57] Case C-37/03 P Bio ID V Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.
[58] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994R0040:en:HTML
[59] Tobias Cohen Jehoram, Constant Van Nispen, J. L. R. A Huydecoper, European trademark law: community trademark law and harmonized national trademark law (Kluwer Law International, 2010)
[60] Deborah E. Bouchoux, ‘ Intellectual Property for Paralegals: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents and Trade Secrets’ (3rd Edition 2009)
[61] Ilanah Simon, ‘ The Functions of Trademarks and their Role in Parallel Importation Cases – What can the EU and Japan Learn from Each Other’s Experiences (IIP Bulletin 2007 ) ‹http://www.iip.or.jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2006/e18_16.pdf› accessed 3 February 2012
[62] Ilanah Simon, ‘ The Functions of Trademarks and their Role in Parallel Importation Cases – What can the EU and Japan Learn from Each Other’s Experiences (IIP Bulletin 2007 ) ‹http://www.iip.or.jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2006/e18_16.pdf› accessed 3 February 2012
[63] Ilanah Simon, ‘ The Functions of Trademarks and their Role in Parallel Importation Cases – What can the EU and Japan Learn from Each Other’s Experiences (IIP Bulletin 2007 ) ‹http://www.iip.or.jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2006/e18_16.pdf› accessed 3 February 2012
[64] Arsenal Football Club v Matthew Reed [2003] RPC 39, [2003] 3 All ER 865
[65] Jennifer Davis, ‘Intellectual Property Law’ (Nicola Padfield 3rd Edn, OUP,2008)
[66] Wolfgang Sakulin, ‘Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry Into the Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression Under European Law’ (Kluwer Law International, 2011)
[67] Wolfgang Sakulin, ‘Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry Into the Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression Under European Law’ (Kluwer Law International, 2011)
[68] Ilanah Simon, ‘ The Functions of Trademarks and their Role in Parallel Importation Cases – What can the EU and Japan Learn from Each Other’s Experiences (IIP Bulletin 2007 )
[69] Case 487/07 LOreal SA V Bellure NV (2009) WLR(D) 203
[70] Maria Barroso Gomes, ‘WHITE PAPER: Trademark functions and keyword advertising on the internet: Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks&Spencer’ (January 2012 aphaia) ‹http://aphaia.co.uk/mediacentre/white_papers/Trademark%20functions%20and%20keyword%20advertising%20on%20the%20internet%20Case%20C-32309%20Interflora%20v%20Marks%26Spencer.pdf› accessed 5 February 2012
[71] Catherine Colston and Kirsty Middleton, ‘Modern Intellectual Property Law’(2nd Edition 2005 Cavendish Publishing)
[72] Catherine Colston and Kirsty Middleton, ‘Modern Intellectual Property Law’(2nd Edition 2005 Cavendish Publishing)
[73] Wolfgang Sakulin, ‘Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry Into the Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression Under European Law’ (Kluwer Law International, 2011)
[74] Wolfgang Sakulin, ‘Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry Into the Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression Under European Law’ (Kluwer Law International, 2011)
[75] Google France Sarl V Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08)[2011]Bus. L.R. 1 (ECJ Grand Chamber)
[76] Case Comment Use of trade mark in internet search keywords examined ( 2010, EC Focus)
‹http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=rl&srguid=ia744d05f000001357b6bb860ffd6a122&docguid=IC9CF0071A68211DF8A36B83B49C0F9E8&hitguid=IC9CF0071A68211DF8A36B83B49C0F9E8&spos=16&epos=16&td=33&crumb-action=append&context=75&resolvein=true› accessed 31 January 2012
[77]Dawn Osborne and Alexander Klett, ‘ Google AdWords Advertising and Community Trademark Law: All Clear After the Court of Justice Has Spoken?’ (No.3 Volume 66 1 February 2011) ‹http://www.reedsmith.com/_db/_documents/google_adwords_article_Klett_feb_2011_.pdf › accessed 13 February 2012
[78] Dawn Osborne and Alexander Klett, ‘ Google AdWords Advertising and Community Trademark Law: All Clear After the Court of Justice Has Spoken?’ (No.3 Volume 66 1 February 2011) ‹http://www.reedsmith.com/_db/_documents/google_adwords_article_Klett_feb_2011_.pdf › accessed 13 February 2012
[79] [79] Dawn Osborne and Alexander Klett, ‘ Google AdWords Advertising and Community Trademark Law: All Clear After the Court of Justice Has Spoken?’ (No.3 Volume 66 1 February 2011) ‹http://www.reedsmith.com/_db/_documents/google_adwords_article_Klett_feb_2011_.pdf › accessed 13 February 2012
[80] Case C- 278/08
[81] Case C‑558/08
[82] http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=1251 accessed 14 February 2012
[83] http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=1251 accessed 14 February 2012
[84] Judgment in Case C-323/09 Interflora Inc, Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Ltd
[85] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-09/cp110097en.pdf
[86] http://www.rawlisonbutler.com/Business/Commercial-Disputes/ip-and-brand-protection/brandhawk-autumn-2011/interflora-v-marks-and-spencer accessed 14 February 2012
[87] [87] Case 487/07 LOreal SA V Bellure NV (2009) WLR(D) 203
[88] Maria Barroso Gomes, ‘WHITE PAPER: Trademark functions and keyword advertising on the internet: Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks&Spencer’ (January 2012 aphaia) ‹http://aphaia.co.uk/mediacentre/white_papers/Trademark%20functions%20and%20keyword%20advertising%20on%20the%20internet%20Case%20C-32309%20Interflora%20v%20Marks%26Spencer.pdf› accessed 5 February 2012
[89] Judgment in Case C-323/09 Interflora Inc, Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Ltd
[90] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-09/cp110097en.pdf
[91] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-09/cp110097en.pdf
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization with which he might be associated.
