Izzivi zaščite barvne znamke

EU in ZDA med monopolnimi pravicami in svobodno konkurenco

Maja Rečnik (Author), Martina Repas (Mentor)

Abstract

Blagovna znamka je pomembna, ker daje kupcu podatke o poreklu blaga ali storitve, prav tako o njegovih značilnostih in kakovosti. Podjetja težijo, da si za svoja prizadevanja na trgu pri ustvarjanju neponovljivih čustvenih spodbud, pridobijo pravno zaščito. To področje je sistemsko urejeno v zakonodaji o blagovnih znamkah, ki slednje v Evropski uniji (EU) pravno opredeljuje, da je namen blagovne znamke zagotavljati identiteto izvora tržnega blaga ali storitve za kupca ali končnega uporabnika. Razvoj tehnologije je omogočil, da so te netradicionalne znamke, kot so vonj, barve, okus postale upravičene zaščite, vključene v zaščiti in da je sistem blagovnih znamk postal bolj liberalen. V primerjavi z drugimi netradicionalnimi znamkami, kot so zvoki, vonji in hologrami so znamke najbolj priljubljene za zaščito. Najbolj pogosta je registracija barve kot blagovne znamke, še posebej težavna pa je registracija prostorsko neomejene barve. Polemike in razprave na tem področju so usmerjene v to, kako opredeliti barvo kot blagovno znamko, kakšen obseg in razsežnosti zaščite dovoliti ter kako preprečiti, da bi vsakršen znak dobil monopolne pravice na trgu, hkrati pa bi podjetja spodbudil k razvoju in vlaganjem v blagovne znamke ter h krepitvi konkurenčnosti. Tako sodišča nenehno iščejo ravnotežje med tema ciljema ter širijo (t. i. liberalni pristop) ali ožijo (t. i. konzervativni pristop) zaščito in tehtajo svojo odločitev med pravicami imetnika blagovne znamke in oviranjem konkurence z upoštevanjem različnih okoliščin, kot so na primer vpliv na odločitve potrošnika, na vrednost blaga idr. Barvna znamka ima nedvomno omogočeno zaščito v zakonodaji EU in v Združenih državah Amerike (ZDA), vendar se prijavitelji srečujejo z ovirami pri njeni registraciji. Pravila za registracijo so enaka za vse znamke, a v mnogih primerih prostorsko neomejena barva ni mišljena kot razlikovalna. Barva, ki ni oblikovana v določeno obliko ali logotip, ima naravne značilnosti, zaradi katerih jo sodišča obravnavajo tudi zelo omejevalno, pod strogimi pogoji, predvsem iz razloga, ker je potrošniki prepoznavajo izdelke in storitve subjektivno in ni jasne vnaprej določene opredelitve. Naloga obravnava ovire pri postopku registracije znamke, ki določajo zahteve in okoliščine, ki jih morajo prijavitelji izpolniti in pomenijo vstop v pravno zaščito premoženja blagovne znamke. Registracija barvnih znamk je v nalogi analizirana v luči zadnjih primerov praks sodišč s poudarkom na EU in potrebno primerjavo z ZDA ter s posameznimi presojami argumentov v drugih državah članicah ter s poudarkom na slovenski praksi. Ukvarjala sem se postopkom in pogoji za registracijo, še posebej s področjem razlikovalnosti barvne znamke in s poskusi dokazovanja razlikovalnosti barve »per se« ali skozi uporabo, kar je tudi najbolj težavna ovira za registracijo. Prav tako sem z namenom primerjalne analize med zakonodajo EU in ZDA, analizirala pomembe pravne prakse v ZDA, kje se soočajo s podobnimi izzivi. Natančneje je analizirana zadeva Louboutin, kjer je okrožno sodišče zavrnilo pogled prejšnje prakse in omejilo zaščito z vrnitvijo k teoriji izčrpanosti barv, kar je Vrhovno sodišče ZDA zavrnilo pred leti. Razlaga v ZDA ima v tem primeru nekaj pomanjkljivosti, namreč niso upoštevana dejstva, da je znamka sestavljena zlasti iz enega odtenka rdeče in je bila registrirana in uporabljena samo za podplat obutve, kar zanika razlikovalno značilnost. Podrobneje so analizirane okoliščine, ki ožijo obseg zaščite, kot so teorija izčrpanosti barv, zmede odtenkov ali široke estetske funkcionalnosti. Ob koncu se ukvarjam z vprašanjem, kako bi se zadeva odvila, če bi bil primer izveden v EU in kakšne so razlike in podobnost med sistemoma EU in ZDA.

Keywords

magistrske naloge;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2016
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[M. Rečnik]
UDC:	347.772(043.3)
COBISS:	5354539
Views:	636
Downloads:	104
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	ISSUES OF COLOR MARK PROTECTION EU AND USA BETWEEN MONOPOL RIGHTS AND FREE COMPETITION
Secondary abstract:	The trademark is important because it gives the customer information about the origin of goods or services, as well as about characteristics and quality. This area is systematically regulated in the trademark law, which the latter in the European Union (EU) rule specifies that the purpose of the brand is to guarantee identification of origin of goods or services to the end user. The development of technology has made it possible that these non-traditional marks, such as odor, color, taste have become eligible for protection and are included in the protection of trademarks. The trademark system have become more liberal. Compared to other non-traditional marks, such as sounds, scents and holograms colors are the most popular trademark. The most common is the registration of a color as a trademark, but particularly difficult is the registration of abstract color. Controversy and debate in this area are focused on how to define the color as a trade mark, what the scope and dimension of protection to allow and how to prevent any sign to gain monopoly rights on the market. And at the same time to encourage companies to develop and invest in the trademark to strengthen competitiveness. Thus, the courts are constantly looking for a balance between these objectives: the spread (the liberal approach) or narrow (the conservative approach) protection. They weigh their decision between the rights of the proprietor of the trademark and the impairment of competition with respect to various circumstances, such as the impact on the consumer's decision to value of the goods and others. Color mark has undoubtedly been enabled the protection in the EU legislation and in the United States of America (USA), but applicants encounter many obstacles at the registration. Registration rules are the same for all trademarks, but in many cases, abstract color is not considered as distinctive. The color, which is formed in a certain shape or logo, has natural characteristics and that is why the courts treat it very restrictive, under strict conditions, primarily on the ground that the consumers identify products and services subjectively and there is no clear pre-defined solution to that. The thesis deals with the obstacles in the process of registration of trade mark which determines the requirements and conditions that applicants must fulfill to enter the legal protection of the trademark. In the thesis, the registration of color marks is analyzed in the light of the recent cases of the courts, with an emphasis on the EU and there is comparison with the US and with individual assessments and arguments in other Member State, with the emphasis on Slovenian law. Particularly there is a focus on the procedure and conditions for registration, to the area of the distinctive character of the color mark and demonstration to gain the distinctive character of abstract color through use. The requirement of distinctive character is also the most difficult obstacle to registration. There is also a benchmark between the EU and the US with the goal to analyze important legal practices in the US and where the system faces similar challenges to EU. More specifically, it analyzes case Louboutin, where the district court rejected the view of the previous practice and limited the protection with the return to the theory of exhaustion of colors, which the US Supreme Court rejected a few years ago. The analysis shows that considering detail circumstances in cases would prevent of narrowing the scope of protection, which is argued by the theory of exhaustion of colors, shades or confusion and broad aesthetic functionality. At the end the thesis is dealing with the question of how would be the results of the dispute between Louboutin and YSL if the case was conducted in the EU and what are the differences and similarities between the EU and the US system.
Secondary keywords:	master thesis;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	108 f.
ID:	9159134