Attraktiva ting och varumärkesrättsligt skydd - En utredning om möjligheten att skydda konst och design som varumärke
(2018) JURM02 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Företag ansöker numera om varumärkesskydd för mindre traditionella tecken, såsom konst- och designtecken. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda möjligheten att skydda konst och design som varumärke. Vid författandet av uppsatsen används både en juridisk metod och en EU-rättslig metod. Dessutom görs en utblick mot norsk rätt i syfte att belysa intressant praxis från EFTA-domstolen. Uppsatsen belyser varumärkesrättens grundläggande skyddskrav samt tre absoluta registreringshinder.
Estetiska ting som konst och design skyddas vanligtvis av upphovsrätt och formgivningsrätt under en tidsbegränsad period. Dessa skydd avser föremålens utseende. Det varumärkesrättsliga skyddet är istället obegränsat i tiden och avser föremålens marknadsmässiga... (More) - Företag ansöker numera om varumärkesskydd för mindre traditionella tecken, såsom konst- och designtecken. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda möjligheten att skydda konst och design som varumärke. Vid författandet av uppsatsen används både en juridisk metod och en EU-rättslig metod. Dessutom görs en utblick mot norsk rätt i syfte att belysa intressant praxis från EFTA-domstolen. Uppsatsen belyser varumärkesrättens grundläggande skyddskrav samt tre absoluta registreringshinder.
Estetiska ting som konst och design skyddas vanligtvis av upphovsrätt och formgivningsrätt under en tidsbegränsad period. Dessa skydd avser föremålens utseende. Det varumärkesrättsliga skyddet är istället obegränsat i tiden och avser föremålens marknadsmässiga funktion. För skydd krävs att varumärket har särskiljningsförmåga samt kan återges på ett klart och tydligt sätt för allmänheten och de behöriga myndigheterna. Konst- och designtecken behandlas som tredimensionella varumärken. Sådana varumärken saknar ursprunglig särskiljningsförmåga om de inte avviker i betydande grad från sedvanlig konst och design. Varumärken som saknar ursprunglig särskiljningsförmåga hindras registrering. Registreringshindret kan övervinnas om varumärket förvärvar särskiljningsförmåga genom användning. Dessutom finns oövervinnliga registreringshinder, varav två hinder har särskild betydelse för konst- och designtecken. Det ena hindret avser tecken som endast består av en form eller annan egenskap hos varan som ger varan ett betydande värde. Hindret avser design som allmänheten uppfattar som särskilt attraktiv eller som ger varan ett högt ekonomiskt värde. Regleringens betydelse diskuteras i doktrin och har under senare tid uppmärksammats mer i praxis. Det andra hindret omfattar tecken som strider mot allmän ordning eller mot allmän moral. Regleringens ordalydelse är vid. Regleringen avser tecken som strider mot demokratiska rättsregler eller som uppfattas som djupt stötande. Enligt EFTA-domstolens praxis förhindrar regleringen varumärkesskydd inte bara när ett tecken i sig uppfattas som problematiskt, utan även när själva varumärkesregistreringen av ett konstverk bedöms som problematisk. Gemensamt för nämnda hinder är att de minskar möjligheten att skydda konst och design som varumärke. Enligt min mening bör emellertid särskiljande konst och design, som i sig inte strider mot allmän ordning eller allmän moral, kunna skyddas som varumärke.
Uppsatsens slutsats är att de rättsliga myndigheterna så långt som möjligt vill förhindra varumärkesskydd för estetiska ting oavsett om konsten eller designen är sedvanlig, unik eller utgör ett samhällsintresse. För att fastställa de oövervinnliga registreringshindrens tillämpningsområde krävs dock ytterligare vägledning från EUD. (Less) - Abstract
- Nowadays companies apply for trade mark protection for less traditional signs, such as art and design signs. The purpose of this essay is to investigate the possibility of protecting art and design as a trade mark. To write this essay, I use both a legal method and an EU-legal method. In addition, an overview of Norwegian law is made in order to highlight interesting practice of the EFTA Court. This essay highlights the fundamental protection requirements of trade mark law as well as three absolute grounds for refusal.
Aesthetic items such as art and design are often protected by copyright and community design right for a limited period of time. These protections refer to the appearance of the objects. The protection of trade mark is... (More) - Nowadays companies apply for trade mark protection for less traditional signs, such as art and design signs. The purpose of this essay is to investigate the possibility of protecting art and design as a trade mark. To write this essay, I use both a legal method and an EU-legal method. In addition, an overview of Norwegian law is made in order to highlight interesting practice of the EFTA Court. This essay highlights the fundamental protection requirements of trade mark law as well as three absolute grounds for refusal.
Aesthetic items such as art and design are often protected by copyright and community design right for a limited period of time. These protections refer to the appearance of the objects. The protection of trade mark is instead unlimited in time and relates to the object’s commercial function. A trade mark must be distinctive and capable of being represented in a clear and precise manner, for the competent authorities and the public. Art and design signs are treated as three-dimensional trade marks. Such trade marks lack original distinctive character if they do not deviate significantly from conventional art and design. Trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are prevented from registration. This ground for refusal can be overcome if the trade mark has become distinctive as a consequence of the use which has been made of it. Furthermore, there are unconquerable grounds for refusal, of which two have particular significance for art and design signs. The first one refers to signs which consist exclusively of the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods. This ground for refusal refers to design as perceived by the public as particularly attractive or design that gives the goods a high economic value. The meaning of the regulation is discussed in the doctrine and has recently been highlighted in court practice. The second ground for refusal concerns signs that are contrary to public order or to accepted principles of morality. The wording of the regulation is broad. The regulation refers specifically to signs that violate democratic rules of law or are perceived as deeply offensive. According to the practice of the EFTA Court, the regulation serve as ground for refusal not only when a sign is perceived as problematic in itself, but also when the registration of an artwork as a trade mark is deemed problematic. Common to the grounds for refusal is that they all reduce the possibility of protecting art and design as a trade mark. However, in my opinion, distinctive art and design, which in itself do not violate public order or accepted principles of morality, should be able to protect as a trade mark.
The essay comes to the conclusion that the legal authorities will, as far as possible, prevent trade mark protection for aesthetic items, whether the art or design is habitual, unique or constitutes a societal interest. However, in order to determine the outermost scope of the unconquerable grounds for refusal, further guidance from the CJEU is required. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965447
- author
- Orrenius, Mimmi LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Attractive Items and Trade Mark Protection - A Study of the Possibility of Protecting Art and Design as a Trade Mark
- course
- JURM02 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Immaterialrätt, EU-rätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965447
- date added to LUP
- 2019-01-28 12:43:41
- date last changed
- 2019-01-28 12:43:41
@misc{8965447,
abstract = {{Nowadays companies apply for trade mark protection for less traditional signs, such as art and design signs. The purpose of this essay is to investigate the possibility of protecting art and design as a trade mark. To write this essay, I use both a legal method and an EU-legal method. In addition, an overview of Norwegian law is made in order to highlight interesting practice of the EFTA Court. This essay highlights the fundamental protection requirements of trade mark law as well as three absolute grounds for refusal.
Aesthetic items such as art and design are often protected by copyright and community design right for a limited period of time. These protections refer to the appearance of the objects. The protection of trade mark is instead unlimited in time and relates to the object’s commercial function. A trade mark must be distinctive and capable of being represented in a clear and precise manner, for the competent authorities and the public. Art and design signs are treated as three-dimensional trade marks. Such trade marks lack original distinctive character if they do not deviate significantly from conventional art and design. Trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are prevented from registration. This ground for refusal can be overcome if the trade mark has become distinctive as a consequence of the use which has been made of it. Furthermore, there are unconquerable grounds for refusal, of which two have particular significance for art and design signs. The first one refers to signs which consist exclusively of the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods. This ground for refusal refers to design as perceived by the public as particularly attractive or design that gives the goods a high economic value. The meaning of the regulation is discussed in the doctrine and has recently been highlighted in court practice. The second ground for refusal concerns signs that are contrary to public order or to accepted principles of morality. The wording of the regulation is broad. The regulation refers specifically to signs that violate democratic rules of law or are perceived as deeply offensive. According to the practice of the EFTA Court, the regulation serve as ground for refusal not only when a sign is perceived as problematic in itself, but also when the registration of an artwork as a trade mark is deemed problematic. Common to the grounds for refusal is that they all reduce the possibility of protecting art and design as a trade mark. However, in my opinion, distinctive art and design, which in itself do not violate public order or accepted principles of morality, should be able to protect as a trade mark.
The essay comes to the conclusion that the legal authorities will, as far as possible, prevent trade mark protection for aesthetic items, whether the art or design is habitual, unique or constitutes a societal interest. However, in order to determine the outermost scope of the unconquerable grounds for refusal, further guidance from the CJEU is required.}},
author = {{Orrenius, Mimmi}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Attraktiva ting och varumärkesrättsligt skydd - En utredning om möjligheten att skydda konst och design som varumärke}},
year = {{2018}},
}