Cutting-Edge Assistance Inwards Gillette Case

Thank you lot Stephanie Bodoni, says the IPKat. On Friday, inwards his Translation Watch, he lamented the absence of an English-language text of the Advocate General's Opinion inwards Case C-228/03 Gillette five LA-Laboratories. Now Stephanie, of leading IP mag Managing Intellectual Property, has come upwardly to his rescue alongside the next note:

The national courtroom (Suomen Korkein Oikeus – supreme courtroom of Finland) would similar to know nether what circumstances the occupation of roughly other company’s merchandise rank tin sack endure considered legal according to the merchandise marks Directive (Article 6(1)c of Directive 89/104.

The illustration concerns the U.S. fellowship The Gillette Company, which owns the rights to the Gillette together with Sensor marks, which are both registered inwards Republic of Finland for sure enough goods, including razors. In Finland, it is the Gillette Group Republic of Finland Oy (also known every bit Gillette) which controls the mark’s occupation together with markets several razors together with razorblades nether the Gillette name. At the same fourth dimension at that spot is besides Finnish fellowship LA-Laboratoires Ltd Oy, which sells similar goods inwards the country, consisting similar those of Gillette, of razors alongside handles together with exchangeable blades, together with marketed nether the rank PARASON FLEXOR together with including a disputation on the packaging: “This blade fits all PARASON FLEXOR und GILLETTE SENSOR devices”.

The Court referred a serial of questions to the ECJ, concerning article 6(1)c of the Trade Marks Directive, including: Which are the criteria nether article 6(1)c of the Directive,
(a) according to which i has to found whether a production is to endure seen every bit a spare purpose or an accessory and
(b) according to which those products, which are neither spare parts or accessories, hit got to endure determined, which could besides belong to the champaign of application of this provision?

In its summary determination the Advocate General said:

For the reasons stated above, I am thus of the sentiment that the questions referred to the Court should endure answered every bit follows:

1. For the applicability of Article 6(1)c of the merchandise marks directive it needs to endure established if it is necessary to specify the other's rank every bit an indication of a product’s (or service’s) use, together with if it raises whatsoever confusion every bit to the production or service’s root then that, when assessing whether another's mark’s occupation is permissible, it does non thing whether the illustration concerns the principal product, accessorize or spare parts.

2. The occupation of another’s rank every bit an indication of a product’s occupation is necessary if it is the solely way to inform the consumers almost the possible uses of the product.

3. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 draw of piece of work concern operator observes the “reasonable customs inwards manufacture or trade” if his occupation of the rank does non enhance the impression that at that spot is a merchandise connectedness betwixt him together with the merchandise rank owner, together with if it does non exploit/take payoff of the distinctiveness or the reputation of the mark. The fact that a draw of piece of work concern operator besides sells those products together with attaches to them another’s merchandise rank does non necessarily imply that he pretends a qualitative equivalence betwixt his together with the merchandise rank owner’s products. The behavior of the draw of piece of work concern operator must endure considered inwards low-cal of a global assessment of all the facts.

4. The fact that a draw of piece of work concern operator who attaches another’s rank to i of his ain products besides sells the variety of products alongside which the first/original production must endure used, constitutes an of import chemical cistron inwards the assessment of the permissibility of the merchandise mark’s use, simply does non alter the assessment criteria.

is thrilled alongside this together with awaits the ruling of the ECJ roughly fourth dimension inside the side past times side half-dozen months. Merpel doesn't know why the IPKat's then interested: it's non every bit if he fifty-fifty shaves.

Shaving cats here and here