Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Bad Faith in Trade Mark Applications

Strömland, William LU (2021) JURM02 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Enligt art. 53(1)(b) EUTMR och art. 7 EUTMD utgör ond tro ett registreringshinder, samt en ogiltighetsgrund för varumärkesregistreringar. EU lagstiftare erbjuder inte en mer djupgående förklaring för vad ond tro inom varumärkesrätten innebär. Istället har uppgiften att definiera begreppet ’ond tro’ fallit på EUD, Tribunalen och EUIPOs administrativa nämnder. Föreliggande uppsats har undersökt hur domstolarna har definierat begreppet ond tro inom varumärkesrätten.

Sedan 2009 har EUD, Tribunalen och EUIPOs administrativa nämnder gett en klarhet över hur begreppet ’ond tro’ ska förstås. Genom domen i Koton har EUD fastslagit att det inte finns något krav på förväxlingsrisk med en tredje parts varumärke för att ansökaren ska kunna anses... (More)
Enligt art. 53(1)(b) EUTMR och art. 7 EUTMD utgör ond tro ett registreringshinder, samt en ogiltighetsgrund för varumärkesregistreringar. EU lagstiftare erbjuder inte en mer djupgående förklaring för vad ond tro inom varumärkesrätten innebär. Istället har uppgiften att definiera begreppet ’ond tro’ fallit på EUD, Tribunalen och EUIPOs administrativa nämnder. Föreliggande uppsats har undersökt hur domstolarna har definierat begreppet ond tro inom varumärkesrätten.

Sedan 2009 har EUD, Tribunalen och EUIPOs administrativa nämnder gett en klarhet över hur begreppet ’ond tro’ ska förstås. Genom domen i Koton har EUD fastslagit att det inte finns något krav på förväxlingsrisk med en tredje parts varumärke för att ansökaren ska kunna anses vara i ond tro. Istället syftar reglerna till att förhindra ansökningar som avser att skada en tredje man och inte avser att delta i konkurrensen på ett lojalt sätt. Vidare förhindrar reglerna ansökningar där avsikten är att erhålla en ensamrätt för andra syften än de som faller inom ett varumärkes funktion. Fortsättningsvis har domarna från EUD, Tribunalen och EUIPOs administrativa nämnder belyst ett antal faktorer som är av vikt i bedömningen om ond tro kan anses föreligga. Domarna har även förklarat hur vissa typer av beteenden, som renommésnyltning och upprepningsansökningar, under vissa förutsättningar kan omfattas av ond tro-reglerna.

Slutligen diskuteras hur bättre lagstiftning skulle kunna öka förutsebarheten inom området. Författaren föreslår att ond tro bör utgöra ett absolut registreringshinder, samt att de relativa ond tro-reglerna kan ha blivit överflödiga. (Less)
Abstract
According to art. 53(1)(b) EUTMR and art. 7 EUTMD, trade mark applications filed in bad faith are to be refused registration, or invalidated if already registered. The European legislators do not provide a more in-depth description of what it means for a trade mark applicant to be in bad faith at the time of filing an application. The task of defining the concept of bad faith has been placed in the hands of the CJEU. This thesis will investigate how the CJEU and the administrative boards have defined the bad faith-provisions in the EUTMR and EUTMD.

Since 2009, the courts of the EU and the administrative boards of the EUIPO have, through some landmark cases, provided clarity in what it means for an applicant to be in bad faith. These... (More)
According to art. 53(1)(b) EUTMR and art. 7 EUTMD, trade mark applications filed in bad faith are to be refused registration, or invalidated if already registered. The European legislators do not provide a more in-depth description of what it means for a trade mark applicant to be in bad faith at the time of filing an application. The task of defining the concept of bad faith has been placed in the hands of the CJEU. This thesis will investigate how the CJEU and the administrative boards have defined the bad faith-provisions in the EUTMR and EUTMD.

Since 2009, the courts of the EU and the administrative boards of the EUIPO have, through some landmark cases, provided clarity in what it means for an applicant to be in bad faith. These cases have culminated in the ruling in Koton, establishing that there is no requirement for a likelihood of confusion with a third party’s trade mark, for an applicant to be deemed to have been in bad faith. Instead, the bad faith-provision targets applications made with the intention to undermine the interests of other and not engaging in fair competition. Furthermore, the provisions target applicants who intend to obtain a trade mark for other reasons than the essential functions of a trade mark. Cases from the CJEU have also delivered clarity with regards to the factors which may indicate the existence of bad faith on the applicant’s part. Furthermore, certain behaviour, such as continuous re-filing of a trade mark, and free-riding, has been highlighted by the CJEU as potentially falling under the scope of the bad faith-provisions.

Finally, the thesis discusses how certain legislative intervention may be desirable, in order to ensure legal certainty. One aspect of this is to provide the EUIPO with the ability to refuse trade mark applications on the basis of bad faith. Furthermore, the thesis discusses why the relative bad faith-provision in the EUTMD may have become redundant. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Strömland, William LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20211
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Immaterialrätt, Eu-rätt
language
English
id
9064271
date added to LUP
2021-10-18 12:53:49
date last changed
2021-10-18 12:53:49
@misc{9064271,
  abstract     = {{According to art. 53(1)(b) EUTMR and art. 7 EUTMD, trade mark applications filed in bad faith are to be refused registration, or invalidated if already registered. The European legislators do not provide a more in-depth description of what it means for a trade mark applicant to be in bad faith at the time of filing an application. The task of defining the concept of bad faith has been placed in the hands of the CJEU. This thesis will investigate how the CJEU and the administrative boards have defined the bad faith-provisions in the EUTMR and EUTMD.

Since 2009, the courts of the EU and the administrative boards of the EUIPO have, through some landmark cases, provided clarity in what it means for an applicant to be in bad faith. These cases have culminated in the ruling in Koton, establishing that there is no requirement for a likelihood of confusion with a third party’s trade mark, for an applicant to be deemed to have been in bad faith. Instead, the bad faith-provision targets applications made with the intention to undermine the interests of other and not engaging in fair competition. Furthermore, the provisions target applicants who intend to obtain a trade mark for other reasons than the essential functions of a trade mark. Cases from the CJEU have also delivered clarity with regards to the factors which may indicate the existence of bad faith on the applicant’s part. Furthermore, certain behaviour, such as continuous re-filing of a trade mark, and free-riding, has been highlighted by the CJEU as potentially falling under the scope of the bad faith-provisions.

Finally, the thesis discusses how certain legislative intervention may be desirable, in order to ensure legal certainty. One aspect of this is to provide the EUIPO with the ability to refuse trade mark applications on the basis of bad faith. Furthermore, the thesis discusses why the relative bad faith-provision in the EUTMD may have become redundant.}},
  author       = {{Strömland, William}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Bad Faith in Trade Mark Applications}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}