3. Legal Sources

Dashwood, Alan, ‘Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law’, (6th edn, Hart, 2011), p. 23-24.

See Conway, Gerard, ‘The Limits of Legal Reasoning and the European Court of Justice’, (1st edn, Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 178.

This is necessary since: First, due to the hierarchy of the legal order and due to the overall purpose and role of secondary legislation. As further dealt with below the purpose of directives is stipulated in art. 114, referring to art. 26 of the TFEU and the purpose of regulations in art. 118 of the TFEU, whereas the functions of directives and regulations are set out in art. 288 of the TFEU. Second, some significant provisions on the functions of the EU institutions are found in EU primary legislation. Of paramount relevance is the function of the CJEU, including the preliminary ruling procedure of the Court of Justice which has been/is crucial to developing the average consumer (see Chap. 4, Sect. 4.​3). Third, for the subsequent analysis of the purpose of trademark law, some general policy statements are found in primary EU legislation.

The institutional framework of the CJEU is set out in arts. 13 and 19 of the TEU (arts. 220-224 of the TEU Pre-Lisbon). A key function of the Court of Justice in creating the average consumer is the dialogue with the national courts through its preliminary rulings procedure in art. 267 of the TFEU (art. 234 of the TFEU Pre-Lisbon) as per art. 19(3)(b) of the TEU. Finally, as provided for in art. 281 of the TEU Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Statute of the CJEU”).

See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.​3.​3.

“Supremacy” and “primacy” are interchangeable terms. See Dashwood, Alan, ‘Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law’, (6th edn, Hart, 2011), p. 235, footnote 1 and Witte, and Bruno de, ‘Direct Effect, Primacy and the Nature of the Legal Order’, in Craig, Paul and Búrca, Gráinne de eds., The Evolution of EU Law (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 323, p. 323, including footnote 1 of the text. The Court of Justice laid down the principle of direct effect in Van Gend en Loos. Van Gend & Loos, Case 26/62, [1963] ECR 3. The Court of Justice stated in this decision that “the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights.” Ibid, p. 12. The principle of supremacy was laid down by the Court of Justice in Costa v. ENEL, Case 6/64, [1964] ECR 1194, p. 593.

Dashwood, Alan, ‘Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law’, (6th edn, Hart, 2011), p. 235 (italics added). It is furthermore stated by de Witte that “[t]he two principles are (…) closely linked, and are habitually considered in conjunction.” Witte, and Bruno de, ‘Direct Effect, Primacy and the Nature of the Legal Order’, in Craig, Paul and Búrca, Gráinne de eds., The Evolution of EU Law (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 323, p. 323.

The constitution that was “put to rest” in 2005 was the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe [2004] (the “EU Constitutional Treaty”). The treaty was ratified by fifteen member states, but was rejected followed by referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005. On the process from the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2005 to the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, see Craig, Paul P., ‘The Lisbon Treaty: Law, Politics, and Treaty Reform’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 20-25.

Tuori, Kaarlo, ‘Ratio and Voluntas: the Tension between Reason and Will in Law’, (1st edn, Ashgate, 2010), p. 309. See also Griller, Stefan, ‘Is this a Constitution? Remarks on a Contested Concept’, in Griller, Stefan and Ziller, Jacques eds., the Lisbon Treaty: EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? (1st edn, Springer, 2008), 21, p. 32-33.

For an overview of the infrastructure of the TEU, see among others, Dashwood, Alan, ‘Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law’, (6th edn, Hart, 2011), p. 24-30.

For an overview of the infrastructure of the Lisbon Treaty among others, Craig, Paul P., ‘The Lisbon Treaty: Law, Politics, and Treaty Reform’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 25-28.

Treaty on the European Union (consolidated version), [2006] OJ C 321 E/5 (the “TEU Pre-Lisbon”).

Treaty Establishing the European Community (consolidated version), [2006] OJ C 321 E/37 (the “TFEU Pre-Lisbon”).

The most important preceding treaties of the TEU and TFEU are the Treaty of Maastricht signed on 7 February 1992, [1992], OJ C191/01, the Treaty of Amsterdam, [1997], OJ C340/01 (the “Amsterdam Treaty”) and the Treaty of Nice, [2002] OJ C 325/01 (the “Nice Treaty”). Besides the treaties just mentioned, the preceding treaties of the TFEU are the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Economic Community (the “EEC Treaty”) and the Single European Act.

Recital 8 of the TM Directive. Although this purpose is not mentioned in the TM Regulation, the statement seems to apply to EU trademark law at large. The reason for this is that the recital states that to achieve this end, it is necessary to change both the TM Regulation and the TM Directive.

Cf. art. 3(3) of the TEU (art. 2 of the TEU Pre-Lisbon). For an overview of the free movement rules in the TFEU, see Craig, Paul P., ‘The Lisbon Treaty: Law, Politics, and Treaty Reform’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 316-318.

Cf. mainly art. 56 of the TFEU (art. 49 of the TFEU Pre-Lisbon).

See Chap. 8.

Cf. art. 95 of the TFEU Pre-Lisbon.

See Chap. 9.

For further introduction to the EU trademark system, see in particular: Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), Chapter 8, p. 158-253, Mühlendahl, Alexander von, Dimitris Botis, Spyros M. Maniatis, et al, ‘Trade Mark Law in Europe: A Practical Jurisprudence’, (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2016), chapter 2, Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad, Gangjee, Dev and Johnson, Phillip ‘Intellectual Property Law’, (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 861-862, Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), Chapter 14 on the TM Directive, mainly p. 259-268, Chapter 14 on the TM Regulation, Cornish, William R., Llewelyn, David, and Alpin, Tanya, ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights’, (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), p. 24-25 and p. 637-639, Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), Chapter 1, and Hasselblatt, Gordian N., ‘Article 1: Community Trade Marks’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 4, p. 4-35, including the detailed listed scholarly sources referred to on p. 4. Overall, the book edited by Hasselblatt provides a commentary on the TM Regulation 2009 and introduces the trademark systems of the EU member states.

Other questions were: “What priority should be given to those who would use Community-wide media to promote their products throughout the whole territory or major parts of it? What registration system was best designed to hold the balance between effectiveness and due respect for competing interests, large and small? What place would remain for legal protection of marks and names on the basis of use rather than registration, where national law so allowed?” Cornish, William R., Llewelyn, David, and Alpin, Tanya, ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights’, (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), p. 638-639.

The description of the early days of European trademark development is found in the TM Memorandum 1976, p. 6.

Cf. art. 16(1) of the TM Directive 1989.

Cf. art. 1(2) of the TM Regulation 1994.

Cf. art. 2 of the TM Regulation 1994 that defined the OHIM (now EUIPO) and art. 25 of the TM Regulation 1994 that stated that an application for registration of a Community trademark ultimately had to be filed with the OHIM.

Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 445.

Hasselblatt, Gordian N., ‘Article 1: Community Trade Marks’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 4, p. 5.

Recital 4 of the TM Directive 2008.

Art. 166 of the TM Regulation 2009.

EP and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), [2015] OJ L 341/21 (the “TM Amendment Regulation”).

Codification and recasting essentially are the same, but recasting indicates that the amendments reflected in the TM Directive are more substantial than the changes reflected in the TM Regulation.

See: http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​dgs/​legal_​service/​recasting_​en.​htm (last visited 26 May 2019).

Recital 2 of the TM Amendment Regulation, and now recital 27 and art. 1(1) of the TM Regulation. For obvious reasons commentators have welcomed the name change of the OHIM. For two things, OHIM (when not abbreviated) was a long name and it did not indicate that the office dealt with intellectual property law. Welcoming the renaming are among others, Dinwoodie, Graeme, and Gangjee, Dev, ‘The Image of the Consumer in EU Trade Mark Law’, in Leczykiewicz, Dorota, and Weatherill, Stephen eds., The Images of the Consumer in EU Law: Legislation, Free Movement and Competition Law (1st edn, Hart, 2016), 339, p. 342, footnote 12 of the text. Grappling with the name of the office does not seem to end with the recent renaming. In a LinkedIn post of MARQUES (a European association representing the interests of trademark owners) Phillips has (teasingly) stated: “Previously English-speakers would refer to the office as “o-him”, though some preferred the more exotic acronym of its Spanish name, OAMI. How will EUIPO be pronounced? Any suggestions?” An “update e-mail” containing the post of the MARQUES blog was received by the author of this book 14 April 2016.

One minor exception is the removal of the requirement that “any sign” to be registrable has to be “capable of being represented graphically.” For an analysis of the consequences of this change on the likelihood of confusion, see Chap. 9, Sect. 9.​3.​1.​1. For an account of the other changes introduced by the new EU trademark legislation, see Hasselblatt, Gordian N., ‘Article 1: Community Trade Marks’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 4, p. 18-23, Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), p. 29-32, Wallberg, Knud, ‘The European Trademark Reform. An Overview from a Danish Perspective’, NIR, vol. 1 (2015), pp. 107, Wallberg, Knud and Ravn, Michael Francke, ‘Varemærkeret: Varemærkeloven og Fællesmærkeloven Med Kommentarer’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2017), p. 52-54 and Moscona, Ron, ‘Reforms to European Union Trade Mark Law’, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, vol. 28/no. 5, (2016), pp. 20.

On the convergence of case law of the Court of Justice related to confusion-based disputes decided under the TM Regulation and the TM Directive, see e.g. LTJ Diffusion v. Sadas, Case C-291/00, [2003] ECR I-2799, para 41, Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, Case C-323/09, [2011] ECR I-8625, para 38, including case law cited here, and Fédération Cynologique v. Federación Canina, Case C-561/11, [2012], (opinion of AG Mengozzi), paras 56-57. See also Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad, Gangjee, Dev and Johnson, Phillip ‘Intellectual Property Law’, (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 1103-1104 and Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), p. 130-131 and p. 297.

Cf. art. 288 of the TFEU.

See Chap. 9, Sect. 9.​3.​2.

Recital 18 of the UCPD.

Cf. arts. 5(2)(b), 6(1)(2), 7(1)(2) and 8 of the UCPD.

See Chap. 7.

Howells, Geraint G., Micklitz, Hans-W, and Wilhelmsson, Thomas, ‘European Fair Trading Law the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’, (1st edn, Ashgate, 2006), preface.

The Trade Marks Act 1938 (C. 22).

The Trade Marks Act 1994 (consolidated version) (C.26).

Cf. s. 2 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 Commencement Order, [1994] (No. 2550 C. 52), cf. s. 109 of the UK TM Act 1994.

See the Trade Marks Regulations 2018, no. 825.

Cf. art. 108(1) of the UK TM Act 1994.

The UK and Denmark joined the EU 1 January 1973.

Cf. art. 16(1) of the TM Directive 1989. Source: https://​europa.​eu/​european-union/​about-eu/​countries_​en (last visited 26 May 2019).

Reform of Trade Marks Law, [1990] (Cm 1203).

See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.​3.

As he was then before becoming Lord Justice of the UK Court of Appeal.

British Sugar v. Robertson, [1996] RPC 281, (EWHC), p. 292.

On the decisions, see footnotes 83 and 84 below.

Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 4-5, footnote 14 of the text. In South Central Trains v. Christopher Rodway the UK Court of Appeal by Keene LJ stated that in analysing the directive at stake “[i]t is also clear that the Directive and the framework leave it to each member state to deal with the details, so that the situation in each such state may be taken into account.” South Central Trains v. Christopher Rodway, [2005] WL 871041, (EWCA), para 32. After concluding that the relevant national provisions are not ambiguous (ibid para 35), Keene LJ stated that “[i]f, however, there were any ambiguity, then I would accept that the criteria set out in Pepper v Hart were met and I would in that situation have regard to the two ministerial statements. They seem to me to put the matter beyond any doubt.” Ibid, para 36.

See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.​3.​1.

Motiver til det af de Svensk-Norsk-Dansk kommitterede Forslag til Lov om beskyttelse af Varemærker of 12 August 1882.

Varumärkeslagen, No 644 of 2 December 1960. The act entered into force 1 January 1961. The 1961 SE TM Act has been changed many times since, last 1 August 2009 through 2009:0116. For an overview of the changes to the 1961 SE TM Act, see Karnov Commentary for the SE TM Act 2010 as updated 25 May 2018, the introductory note p. 29.

Varemærkelov, Act. No 211 of 11 June 1959. The act entered into force 1 October 1959. The DK TM Act 1959 has been changed many times, the latest changes were made 17 April 1989 through LBK 249/14.4.1989.

Varemerkeloven, Act No 4 of 3 March 1961. The 1961 DK TM Act entered into force 1 October 1961 as most recently amended 1 January by L17.06.2005 nr. 90.

Grundén, Örjan, ‘En Ny Nordisk Känneteckensrätt Inför 2000-Talet?’, NIR, vol. 4 (1994), pp. 542, p. 544.

Varemærkelov, Act No 341 of 6 June 1991.

Cf. § 61 of the DK TM Act 1991.

EFTA, ‘This is EFTA 2015’, (booklet on EFTA), available at: http://​www.​efta.​int/​publications/​this-is-efta-2015 (last visited 26 May 2019), p. 8.

Cf. art. 65(2), of the EEA Agreement of 1994, cf. Annex XVII s 4. Certain exemptions to this obligation are not relevant to the substantial analysis of this book. Hence, “[t]he provisions of the [1989 TM] Directive shall, for the purposes of the [EEA]Agreement, be read with the following adaptations: (a) in Article 3(2), the term ‘trade mark law’ shall be understood to be the trade mark law applicable in a Contracting Party; (b) in Articles 4(2)(a)(i), (2)(b) and (3), 9 and 14, the provisions concerning the Community trade mark shall not apply to EFTA States unless the Community trade mark extends to them; (c) Article 7(1) shall be replaced by the following:

Varumärkeslagen, SFS 2010:1877 of 9 December 2010, as most recently amended by amending act SFS 2018:287 entering into force 25 May 2018.

I.e. § 6 of the SE TM Act 1960. Bet. 2009 10/225, p. 61.

Schovsbo has described Koktvedgaard as the person with the most individual impact on Nordic intellectual property law research. See Schovsbo, Jens, ‘Forord’, in Schovsbo, Jens ed., Netværksmødet 2003: Immaterialrettens Afbalancering (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2003), 7, p. 8.

The considerations by various scholars and practitioners on a reform of Nordic trademark law, aired during a roundtable debate, were summarised by Hyllinge in Nordisk Immateriellt Rättsskydd (“NIR”) 1994. Koktvedgaard’s opinion was summarised on p. 552-554 in Hyllinge, Claus. ‘Sammanfattning Av Diskussionen Rörande En Ny Nordisk Känneteckenrätt Inför 2000-Talet’, NIR, vol. 4/(1994), pp. 545.

Grundén, Örjan, ‘En Ny Nordisk Känneteckensrätt Inför 2000-Talet?’, NIR, vol. 4 (1994), pp. 542, p. 544.

For instance, the Nordic journal on intellectual property (NIR) publishes academic articles and case comments. Also, every year IPR network meetings are held among senior researchers and PhD candidates from originally the Nordic countries but now also from three German universities. Although these meetings are on general intellectual property, they inevitably also affect the academic collaboration on trademark law among the Nordic countries. On these meetings, see Schovsbo, Jens, ‘Forord’, in Schovsbo, Jens ed., Netværksmødet 2003: Immaterialrettens Afbalancering (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2003), 7, p. 7-8.

Regeringens proposition 2017/18:267 Modernare regler om varumärken och en ny lag om företagsnamn, of 7 June 2018. The amendments are implemented into the consolidated Lag om ändring i varumärkeslagen (2010:1877), SFS 2018:1652 of 15 November 2018.

Erhvervs-, Vækst- og Eksportudvalget 2017-18, ERU Alm.del Bilag 261, Udkast til Forslag til Lov om ændring af varemærkeloven, fællesmærkeloven, designloven og gassikkerhedsloven, of 25 June 2018. The amendments were approved by the legislature through Lov om ændring af varemærkeloven og forskellige andre love og om ophævelse af fællesmærkeloven, Act No 1533 of 18 December 2018.

A key difference is, according to Lassen and Stenvik, that Danish and Norwegian trademark law has been regarded as part of the general law of marketing practices and general principles that prevent unfair competition. Sweden, on the other hand, has required a stricter legal basis for intervention and the trademark legislation has been more fenced off from general unfair competition law. The consequence of this is that “not even identical legal provisions would have led to full legal harmonization” between the countries. In Norwegian: “at selv ikke likelydende lovbestemmelser ville ha gitt full rettsenhet.” Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 28.

The recent amendments were approved by the legislature through Lag om ändring i varumärkeslagen (2010:1877) SFS 2018:1652 of 15 November 2018 and appear in the consolidated SE TM Act 2010.

Regeringens proposition 2009/10:225 Ny varumärkeslag och ändringar i firmalagen, of 3 June 2010.

In von Colsen the starting point for the ruling was that the directive at stake was not sufficient clear for it to have direct effect. However, the Court of Justice stated: “It is for the national court to interpret and apply the legislation adopted for the implementation of the directive in conformity with the requirements of Community law, in so far as it is given discretion to do so under national law.” Ibid, para 28.

The Court of Justice elaborated on the principle laid down in von Colsen and held that “in applying national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before or after the directive, the national court called upon to interpret it is required to do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty [art. 288 of the TFEU].” Marleasing, Case C-106/89, [1990] ECR I-4135, para 8. As for the question of direct applicability, the Court of Justice initially stated that “a directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and, consequently, a provision of a directive may not be relied upon as such against such a person.” Ibid, para 6.

Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 2982-01, [2003], SESC. For further on this decision, see Chap. 10, Sect. 10.​3.​2.​1.

IFX v. PN, T 2228-00, [2003], SESC, p. 565. For further on this decision, see Chap. 10, Sect. 10.​3.​2.​1. On the relationship between Swedish intellectual property law and EU law in the described transition period until Sweden became an EU member, see Bernitz, Ulf, Karnell, Gunnar, Lars Pherson, et al, ‘Immaterialrätt Och Otillbörlig Konkurrens’, (14th edn, Jure Bokhandel, 2017), p. 27-29.

The recent amendments were approved by the legislature through Lov om ændring af varemærkeloven og forskellige andre love og om ophævelse af fællesmærkeloven, Act No 1533 of 18 December 2018 and appear in Varemærkeloven, consolidated act of 29 January 2019. no 88.

For an overview of the development of the DK TM Act 1991 and preceding trademark acts, see Wallberg, Knud and Ravn, Michael Francke, ‘Varemærkeret: Varemærkeloven og Fællesmærkeloven Med Kommentarer’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2017), p. 49-51, Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 447-448 and the Karnov Commentary for the DK TM Act 1991 as updated 1 July 2017, p. 10-11.

The quotes in Danish: “en god og visionær lov” and “[d]en var fuldt på højde med retsudviklingen i industriens hovedlande.” Koktvedgaard, Mogens, and Wallberg, Knud, ‘Varemærkeloven af 6. Juni 1991 og Fællesmærkeloven af 6. Juni 1991 med Indledning og Kommentarer’, (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1994), p. 13.

Ajos, Case 15/2014, [2016], (DKSC), p. 44. The unofficial translation of the decision into English referred to here is available on the website of the DK Supreme Court: http://​www.​supremecourt.​dk/​supremecourt/​nyheder/​pressemeddelelse​r/​Documents/​Judgment%20​15-2014.​pdf (last visited 26 May 2019). The official Danish version of the decision, Ajos, Sag 15/2014, [2016], (DKSC), is also available of the website of the DK Supreme Court: http://​www.​hoejesteret.​dk/​hoejesteret/​nyheder/​Afgorelser/​Documents/​15-2014.​pdf (last visited 26 May 2019). See also Evald, Jens, ‘Juridisk Teori, Metode og Videnskab’, (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2016), p. 62-65.

The EU law principle at stake was the prohibition of discrimination due to age.

I.e. Ajos, Case C-441/14, [2016] (Grand Chamber), paras 33-37 and 43 as confirmed by the Court of Justice in Egenberger v. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung, Case C-414/16, [2018] (Grand Chamber), paras 72-73. See Ajos, Case 15/2014, [2016], (DKSC), p. 44.

Varemerkeloven, Act No 8 of 26 March 2010, as most recently changed by Act No 65 of 19 June 2015.

Om lov om beskyttelse av varemerker (varemerkeloven), Ot.prp. nr. 98 (2008–2009) of 15 May 2009.

Cf. art. 1(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Cf. art. 1(2) of the EEA Agreement where it is stated: “In order to attain the objectives set out in paragraph 1, the association shall entail, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement: (a) the free movement of goods; (b) the free movement of persons; (c) the free movement of services; (d) the free movement of capital; (e) the setting up of a system ensuring that competition is not distorted and that the rules thereon are equally respected; as well as (f) closer cooperation in other fields, such as research and development, the environment, education and social policy.”

Opinion 1991/1, 1, para 21.

Ibid, paras 15-16. Another difference is, according to the Court of Justice, that although both the EEC and the EEA Agreement have been established as international treaties, the EEC “constitutes the constitutional charter of the Community based on the rule of law.” Ibid, para 21.

On this, see Opinion of the Court of Justice 1/91 of 14 December 1991.

For an overall discussion on the meaning of the EEA Agreement in light of the EU and intellectual property law, see Davis, Richard, St Quintin, Thomas and Tritton, Guy, ‘Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 39-47.

Cf. art. 65(2), of the EEA Agreement of 1994, cf. Annex XVII dated 8 July 2016, s 9(h), cf. footnote 42 of the text.

In attachment no 2 to “om samtykke til ratifikasion av Avtale om Det europeiske økonomiske samarbeidsområde (EØS), undertegnet i Oporto 2. mai 1992, St.prp. nr. 100 (1991-1992)” of 15 May 1992 (the “NO Prop. 100 (1991-1992)”).

Cf. art. 129(1) of the EEA Agreement. As Stenvik has pointed out in a commentary to Klagenemnda v. Jo-Bolaget Fruktprodukter, HR-2001-1049, [2002], NOSC and referring to art. 129(1) of the EEA Agreement, the judge was not correct in claiming that the Norwegian translation of the 1988 Directive was unofficial. Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 324.

In English “good morning.” For an in-depth analysis of the decision, see Stenvik in Rognstad, Ole-Andreas, Stenvik, Are and Lassen, Birger Stuevold, ‘Fra norsk rettspraksis’, NIR, vol. 3 (2002), p. 313-325.

As mentioned by Stenvik, the issue here was that the Norwegian translation indicated a higher threshold for registration than did in particular the Danish version, but also the English version. Rognstad, Ole-Andreas, Stenvik, Are and Lassen, Birger Stuevold, ‘Fra norsk rettspraksis’, NIR, vol. 3 (2002), p. 310, p. 319 and 324.

The relevant provision was § 13 of the NO TM Act 1961.

The signatory date of the EEA Agreement.

This is in accordance with art. 6 of the EEA Agreement. Klagenemnda v. Jo-Bolaget Fruktprodukter, HR-2001-1049, [2002], NOSC, p. 395-396. See also Gundersen, Aase, ‘Norsk Varemerkerett i Lys Av EU-Utviklingen’, NIR, vol. 1 (2005), pp. 106, p. 106 and Thorning, Louise Christina, and Finnanger, Solvår Winnie, ‘Trademark Protection in the European Union with a Scandinavian View’, (1st edn, Thomson Reuters, 2010), p. 36.

Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 31. The NO TM Act 1961 implemented the TM Directive 1989 which did not cause substantial changes to the NO TM Act 1961 relevant to this book. Ot. prp. 72 (1991-92), p. 54. The NO TM Act 2010 implemented the TM Directive 2008.

Ot. prp. 72 (1991-92), p. 55.

Klagenemnda v. Jo-Bolaget Fruktprodukter, HR-2001-1049, [2002], NOSC.

NO TM Prop. 98/2008-09, p. 8. See also from literature, Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 31-32 and Thorning, Louise Christina, and Finnanger, Solvår Winnie, ‘Trademark Protection in the European Union with a Scandinavian View’, (1st edn, Thomson Reuters, 2010), p. 36.

Pangea Property Partners v. Klagenemnda, HR-2016-01993-A, [2016], NOSC, paras 42-43.

Cf. art. 108(2) of the EEA Agreement: “The EFTA Court shall, in accordance with a separate agreement between the EFTA States, with regard to the application of this Agreement be competent, in particular, for: (a) actions concerning the surveillance procedure regarding the EFTA States; (b) appeals concerning decisions in the field of competition taken by the EFTA Surveillance Authority; (c) the settlement of disputes between two or more EFTA States.”

The NO Prop. 100 (1991-1992), p. 329.

Vigeland, Case E-5/16, [2017], paras 44-45.

A search for decisions on “trademarks” has been conducted in the EFTA case law database 31 July 2018. The decisions on trademark law are: Mag Instrument, Case E-2/97, [1997], Paranova, Case E-3/02, [2003], L’Oréal, Joined Cases E-9/07 and Case E-10/07, [2008] and Vigeland, Case E-5/16, [2017].

Vigeland, Case E-5/16, [2017], paras 139 and 141. For further on this decision, see Senftleben, Martin, ‘Vigeland and the Status of Cultural Concerns in Trade Mark Law – The EFTA Court Develops More Effective Tools for the Preservation of the Public Domain’, IIC, vol. 48/no. 6, (2017) pp. 683.

For a recent perspective on the decisions of the EFTA Court on trademark law, see Rognstad, Ole-Andreas, ‘Intellectual Property Law’, in Baudenbacher, Carl ed., The Handbook of EEA Law (1st edn, Springer, 2016), 703, p. 703-720.

See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.​5.​4.

Cf. art. 123(1) of the TM Regulation.

Cf. art. 133(1), cf. art. 124 of the TM Regulation.

Cf. art. 133(3) of the TM Regulation.

Essentially, appeal to the SE Supreme Court may only happen in rare occasions, including if the matter “is of importance for the guidance of the application of law that the Supreme Court considers the appeal,” cf. § 10, sub-s 1(1) of the Swedish Code on Civil Procedure (Rättegångsbalk, 1942:740 of 18 July 1942 (as changed 15 November 2016)).

On the Danish Community Trade Mark Courts, see Christiansen, Claus Barrett, ‘Denmark’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 1292, p. 1292-1293, Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), p. 455-462 and Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 671-673.

Cf. art. 133(2) of the TM Regulation.

After a case has been heard by two instances, the case may only be heard by the DK Supreme Court after permission from the Appeals Permission Board, cf. § 371, stk. 1 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

Cf. § 62 of the NO TM Act 2010 for: “a) actions concerning a review of a decision made by the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights as mentioned in Section 52” and “c) civil actions concerning infringements of a registered trademark.”

Only to a limited extent may decisions of the NO Appeal Court be appealed to the NO Supreme Court, including if the case relates to a principle matter. Also, on rare occasions permission may be given to an appeal directly from a district court to the Supreme Court. See chapter 30 of the Norwegian Civil Procedural Act (Lov om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister (tvisteloven), No 90 of 17 June 2005 (as changed 22 April 2016)).

Publication of the lists of Community trade mark courts and Community design courts in accordance with Article 95(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Article 80(4) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 24 September 2014 on Community designs [2014] C 332/06.

For further on the UK Trade Mark Courts, see Scourfield, Tom, ‘United Kingdom’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 1443, p. 1443-1445 and Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), p. 346-350.

Cf. § 6(2) of the SE 2010 TM Act. Under (1) of this provision, the SE District Court is the residual court, in case “the Code of Judicial Procedure does not assign a Court competent to entertain a case concerning revocation of a trade mark registration, trade mark infringement or a declaration whether certain legal relations exist or not.” The trademark disputes of the SE District Court are dealt with in the fifth chamber of the court specialised in intellectual property disputes.

Prop. 2015/16:57, p. 1. This proposition sets out in detail the functions of the new court vis-à-vis the exiting courts. See also generally on the Swedish Community Trade Mark Court Dahlman, Magnus, ‘Sweden’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 1438, p. 1438-1439.

Phillips, Jeremy, ‘Trade Mark Law a Practical Anatomy’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 38.

Before the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization of 14 July 1967, it was the United International Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property (known as “BIRPI”) that administered the Paris Convention.

Annex 1C of the WTO Agreement.

The UK: accession 17 March 1884, in force 7 July 1884. Sweden and Norway: accession 29 May 1885, in force 1 July 1885. Denmark: accession and in force on 1 October 1884.

For the accession of the EU to TRIPS Agreement, see Davis, Richard, St Quintin, Thomas and Tritton, Guy, ‘Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 47-55.

For an overview of the WTO members per 29 July 2016 and their signatory dates, see: https://​www.​wto.​org/​english/​thewto_​e/​whatis_​e/​tif_​e/​org6_​e.​htm (last visited 26 May 2019).

Cf. art. 2(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, art. 1 to 12 and 19 were incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement. Art. 6 to 10ter are the provisions on trademark protection and protection against unfair competition.

See Ricketson, Sam, ‘The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property: A Commentary’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 155.

Pila, Justine, ‘Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Europeanization: Methodological Themes and Context’, in Ohly, Ansgar and Pila, Justine eds., The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2013), 3, p. 7.

Cf. art. 1(1) of the TRIPS Agreement: “Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement.” See also Wager, Hannu, and Jayashree, Watal, ‘Introduction to the TRIPS Agreement’, in Taubman, Antony, Hannu, Wager and Jayashree, Watal eds., A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement (1st edn, Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1, p. 13-14.

Recital 43 of the TM Directive. Previously, the TRIPS Agreement was not referred to in the recitals of the directive. See recital 13 of the TM Directive 2008 and the EU Commission’s proposal for the TM Directive COM(2013) 162 final, p. 9. As for the relationship between the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, and EU law, including the duty of interpreting EU law consistently with international law, see Davis, Richard, St Quintin, Thomas and Tritton, Guy, ‘Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 47-55.

Pila, Justine, ‘Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Europeanization: Methodological Themes and Context’, in Ohly, Ansgar and Pila, Justine eds., The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2013), 3, p. 8.

Except Cyprus and Malta. The countries relevant to this book signed the Nice Agreement 15 June 1957.

Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 1 January 2017.

Although the obligation to apply for the classification of the Nice Agreement for the registration of EU Trademarks does not appear in the TM Regulation 1994 and TM Regulation 2009, it has been the practice of the OHIM to require the use of the Nice Classification. See the Guidelines Concerning Proceedings Before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Part B Examination, Final version April 2008, available at: https://​euipo.​europa.​eu/​tunnel-web/​secure/​webdav/​guest/​document_​library/​contentPdfs/​law_​and_​practice/​guidelines/​ctm/​examination_​en.​pdf (last visited 26 May 2019), p. 10-13.

Cf. art. 33 of the TM Regulation and art. 39 of the TM Directive. See also the EU Commission’s proposal for the TM Directive COM(2013) 162 final, p. 9.

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Case C-307/10, [2012], para 48. See overall paras 46-49 of the decision, including the case law referred to here, for a discussion on the purpose of the trademark registration system. On the classification system, see Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad, Gangjee, Dev and Johnson, Phillip ‘Intellectual Property Law’, (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2018), 932-934 and Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), p. 114-115.

Cf. art. 33(7) of the TM Regulation and art. 39(7) of the TM Directive (italics added).

See Chap. 11, Sect. 11.​3. Jaeger-Lenz, Andrea, ‘Article 8: Relative Grounds for Refusal’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 198, p. 215-221.

On a description of the practice of the DK IPO on the assessment of the relative grounds for refusal, see Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 455.458.

On a description of the practice of the UK IPO on the assessment of the relative grounds for refusal, see Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), pp. 9.

Cf. § 20, cf. § 16 of the NO TM Act 2010.

Cf. § 17, chapter 2, cf. § 10, ch. 1 of the SE TM Act 2010. See also 2009/10:225, p. 422-423.

As pointed out by Firth et al, the lacking ex officio assessment leave “a predisposition to allow the market to regulate itself and for applicants to ‘have a go’ at registering borderline or, possibly, invalid marks.” Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), p. 9. See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.​5.​1.

Other activities are: “OHIM’s Guidelines (1996, periodically revised) and Manual of Trade Mark Practice (constantly revised); the publication of decisions of Boards of Appeal via the OHIM website; the Alicante News (monthly from November 2004); the European Trade Mark Judges’ Symposia (1st 1999 to 7th 2011); OHIM seminars for Community trade mark judges and other educational initiatives; the academic analyses in books, journals, and conferences; private sector initiatives including the European Trade Mark Reports, conferences, Darts, blogs, and so on; and personal contacts among both judges and lawyers.” Arnold, Sir Richard, ‘An Overview of European Harmonization Measures in Intellectual Property Law’, in Ohly, Ansgar and Justine Pila eds., The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2013), 25, p. 31. For an overview of the activities of the EUIPO, see also Manea, Ruxandra, ‘Article 2: Office’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 35, p. 37.

The EUIPO Guidelines for Examination of European Union Trade Marks, Final Version 1.0 of 1 October 2017, available at: https://​euipo.​europa.​eu/​ohimportal/​en/​trade-mark-guidelines (last visited 26 May 2019).

See also Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), p. 28.

Cf. § 14(7) of the NO TM Act 1961 (as amended in § 16(b) of the NO TM Act 2010) and § 25 of the NO TM Act 1961 (§ 35 of the NO TM Act 2010).

Budejovicky Budvar v. Anheuser-Busch, HR-1998-55-A, [1998], NOSC, p. 1814.

Vesta Forsikring v. Trygg-Hansa, Rt 2006 1473, [2006], NOSC, para 45.

The optional art. 3(2)(d) of the TM Directive 1989 (art. 4(2) of the TM Directive). The NO Supreme Court noted however, that the § 14(7) of the NO TM Act 1961 resembled art. 4(4)(g) of the TM Directive 1989 [the TM Directive art. 5(4)(c)]. The court noted that the bad faith requirement had to be interpreted the same way in both provisions of the directive. This, the court found, justified the link from Norwegian trademark, through art. 4(4)(g), to art. 3(2)(d) of the TM Directive 1989 and then finally to art. 51(1)(b) of the TM Regulation 1994.

Also the Court of Justice added that the registration had to be against “fair trade practice.” Ibid, para 61. The NO Supreme Court added that the interpretation in Vesta Forsikring v. Trygg-Hansa not only went against its interpretation in Budejovicky Budvar v. Anheuser-Busch but also the Danish and Swedish trademark acts. Ibid, para 62.

Gundersen, Aase, ‘Fra Norsk Rettspraksis’, NIR, vol. 6/(2007), pp. 578, p. 580.

Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 32.

OHIM v. NIKE, Case C-53/11 P, [2012], para 57.

American Clothing v. OHIM, Joined Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P, [2009], para 57.

See also Arnold, Sir Richard, ‘An Overview of European Harmonization Measures in Intellectual Property Law’, in Ohly, Ansgar and Justine Pila eds., The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2013), 25, p. 31 and Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), p. 28.

Pangea Property Partners v. Klagenemnda, HR-2016-01993-A, [2016], NOSC, para 45.

In Norwegian: “homogenitetshensyn.” Reference was made to art. 3 of the EEA Agreement. Pangea Property Partners v. Klagenemnda, HR-2016-01993-A, [2016], NOSC, para 46.

See for instance, Jensens Bøfhus v. Sæby Fiskehal, U.2014.3658H, [2014], (DKSC) where the OHIM Guidelines (now the EUIPO TM Guidelines) are referred to in the note to the summary of the decision as published in the Danish journal Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen. On the value of these notes as a legal source, see Chap. 10, Sect. 10.​3.​2.​2.

See for instance Specsavers v. Asda, [2012] EWCA Civ 24, para 52.