Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names
Show Less

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.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 11: Splitting Trade Marks and the Competition Laws

Thomas Hays


Thomas Hays 1. INTRODUCTION Intellectual property rights are, by definition, legal monopolies. Their value is in their monopolistic qualities, allowing the owners to prevent others from exploiting the same inventions, creations and brands. This is to say that the value of intellectual property rights lies in the ability they give their owners to minimize competition and, therefore, to extract higher prices for the goods and services protected by those rights. Monopolies, in general, are countercompetitive. This places intellectual property rights potentially in conflict with the competition law provisions of the Treaty of Rome,1 specifically with Articles 81 and 82,2 and with the national laws of the Member States derived from those articles.3 The European Court of Justice has developed related doctrines that apply to the general conflict between the monopolistic legal nature of trade mark rights and the policy of protecting competition as a means of promoting internal market integration, such as the distinction between the existence and the exercise of rights formulated in the Consten and Grundig case.4 The precedential value of the decisions giving rise to the doctrines is complicated by the cases having been considered in extreme situations, where commercial monopolies were enforced through trade mark rights. In such circumstances the court has shown itself willing to override brand interests to the extent of ensuring the future growth of competition in downstream markets. 1 Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (2002), [2002] O.J. C 325/1,...

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

or login to access all content.