Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names

Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names

Exploring Use of the Same Mark by Multiple Undertakings

Edited by IIanah Simon Fhima

There are a number of points throughout the trade mark system where multiple undertakings share the same name, either unwillingly, or by consent. In this timely book, expert contributors address this controversial issue and identify the various points at which names are shared. This unique book uses both historical and interdisciplinary perspectives, as well as more traditional legal methodology, to examine the practical and theoretical implications of such name sharing for the parties involved. It analyses what can be learned from the sharing process about the nature of the trade mark system and the interests which it protects. General themes relating to the nature and purpose of trade mark law are also discussed.

Chapter 4: Coexistence in Community Trade Mark Disputes: When is it Recognized and What are its Implications?

Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral

Subjects: law - academic, intellectual property law

Extract

Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral* 1. INTRODUCTION: COEXISTENCE OR ACQUIESCENCE? In trade mark law, as in diplomacy, coexistence may provide a pragmatic alternative solution to a conflict by favouring a principle of mutual tolerance. That a name is shared by two trade mark holders may thus, under certain conditions, render those marks compatible. It is accepted that in inter partes proceedings before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), coexistence of the conflicting trade marks in the same territory may be a relevant criterion when assessing whether there is likelihood of confusion in a given market. However, the argument taken from the coexistence of the marks must be distinguished from acquiescence within the meaning of Article 53 of Council Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark (CTMR). A claim for acquiescence constitutes an exception which can only be invoked before OHIM as a defensive argument in an action for invalidity and not in opposition proceedings, not least because Article 53 requires that the mark in regards to which the use was acquiesced for more than five years be registered.1 The impact of coexistence is two-fold. First, coexistence between the two marks involved in the opposition or invalidity proceedings may be persuasive of the non-existence of a conflict between the marks in the relevant public’s perception. Secondly, where many similar marks (other than the two marks involved in the opposition or invalidity proceedings) are used by competitors, such coexistence may affect the scope of protection of the earlier right relied on in...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information