Traditionally, it is understood that trade mark law tackles the prospect of damage resulting from the use of confusingly similar trade marks. The aim is broadly to ensure commercial origin is differentiated and proprietary rights secured. A lot is written on this in Europe. In contrast, very little time and space is allocated to trade mark coexistence agreements. Despite a shortage of authoritative rulings, it is not immediately clear why, especially as they may be having a profound impact on the use of product markers. Coexistence agreements commonly exist between parties with at least similar trade marks who decide to formally coexist, often in the wake of legal skirmishes. In the busy European market, where Community-wide protection is available, an up-front contract may be an attractive way to avoid trade mark conflict. When these contracts work, trade mark law is effectively pre-empted as the underlying agreement, possibly remote of genuine trade mark concerns, is the real governing law. Among other things, this affects the ability of competitors to acquire rights and the quality of information available to consumers. A better understanding of these agreements is essential therefore, not least because on the limited occasions they come before trade mark bodies, the juridical response is inconsistent, though a theme that emerges is of a dismissive and unconvincing attitude. The reasons why are rarely elaborated and while this may simply reflect an awkward interplay between contracts and trade marks, the article deepens the discussion. Starting from concepts and commercial realities, the analysis proceeds to case law and underlying legal and economic rationale to determine whether the lack of fuss is justified.
Scrutiny of patent systems is never far away. The European Patent Office has long faced rising levels of 'inventive activity'. Fast, fluid technologies and strategic firm behaviour add to the difficulties faced in trying to reward inventions with commensurate rights. Analysis suggests stronger patent protection does not necessarily equate with more innovation and greater diffusion of knowledge; nor do more patents lead to or reflect more innovation. This article focuses on improving the fundamental workings of the European system as is stands, and proposes a focus on quality and patent examiners as the best way to do so.
Examines the current protection afforded to brand owners within the realms of cyberspace, specifically the World Wide Web. Trade mark law currently provides a benchmark for the law and its attempt to regulate the problematical operation of Internet addresses and Web sites. These commercial sites can be contacted by potential customers through the operation of “Internet domain names”. It is the abuse of these valuable domain names, however, that has aroused considerable controversy for brand owners over recent years. In particular, the apparently powerful terrestrial brands have proved easy targets as cyberbrands – for those rather unscrupulous individuals seeking to take advantage of considerable brand goodwill by placing them on the Internet, only to ransom to the highest bidder, often the (terrestrially) “legitimate owners”. Brand owners must remain vigilant, and this article analyses the curent situation and offers sensible and practical advice for those seeking safe and cost‐effective brand exposure on the Information SuperHighway.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.