Trade Mark Protection for Smells, Tastes and Feels – Critical Analysis of Three Non-Visual Signs in the EU

Author:

Geiregat SimonORCID

Abstract

AbstractThis article focuses on the ability to protect three non-traditional signs as trade marks in the EU: smell (olfactory marks), taste (gustatory marks) and feel (tactile marks). All three types of subject matter can meet the definition of a sign. According to the majority view in literature and practice, none of the three can currently be represented on the register with sufficient clarity and precision, however. It is argued that the veracity of that finding essentially boils down to a lack of vocabulary and IT solutions, and that it depends on the level of detail that can be expected from non-visual signs. Theoretically, distinctiveness is less of an obstacle to protection. Although some signs need to acquire distinctiveness through use, distinctiveness should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and it cannot be excluded that there are smells, tastes and feels that are inherently distinct. In practice, authorities seem to uphold excessive thresholds for olfactory, gustatory, and especially tactile marks. This is understandable in the light of their potential scope, which lies at the heart of the debate on their eligibility for protection. Indeed, granting protection to these three types of signs carries the risk of depleting and propertising almost anything. Although this might be true, it is contended that more research is needed and that there is no legislative basis for a Freihaltebedürfnis (need to keep signs freely available) in this respect. After considering fundamental rights and public policy as alternative means of channelling that concern, the article concludes that it is for the EU legislator to evaluate whether to exclude certain signs from trade mark law.

Funder

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (IMPRS-CI, IP MPG)

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Political Science and International Relations

Reference33 articles.

1. Blum J, Cullen A (2014) The Apple store and unconventional trade marks: how easy are they to enforce? JIPLP 1008–1011

2. Calboli I (2018) Hands off “my” colors, patterns, and shapes! How non-traditional trademarks promote standardization and may negatively impact creativity and innovation. In: Calboli I, Sentfleben MRF (eds) The protection of non-traditional trademarks: critical perspectives. OUP, Oxford

3. Castaldi C (2018) The economics and management of non-traditional trademarks. In: Calboli I, Sentfleben MRF (eds) The protection of non-traditional trademarks: critical perspectives. OUP, Oxford

4. Desai D (2018) Should trademark law protect non-traditional trademarks? In: Calboli I, Sentfleben MRF (eds) The protection of non-traditional trademarks: critical perspectives. OUP, Oxford

5. Dreier T (2019) Grundrechte und die Schranken des Urheberrechts. GRUR 1003–1008

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Trade Marks;International Law and the Global South;2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3