Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Varumärkesanvändning – En analys av rekvisiten i 1 kap. 10 § 1 st. 1 p. varumärkeslagen

Klisanin, Ivana LU (2022) HARH13 20212
Department of Business Law
Abstract
The meaning of an exclusive right is that a trademark owner has the right to prevent a third party from using the owner’s trademark. The exclusive right only applies if there is a trademark use, which means that the necessary requirements “use”, “for goods or services” and “in the course of trade” must be met. Since trademark law only gives examples of which actions can be opposed, the ECJ’s statements and application therefore becomes important.

Regarding the requirement “use” it has been established that third parties must use the trade mark in their own marketing. The ECJ’s has also developed two criteria, active action and control, which needs to be met in order for the requirement to be met. However, there is some confusion in... (More)
The meaning of an exclusive right is that a trademark owner has the right to prevent a third party from using the owner’s trademark. The exclusive right only applies if there is a trademark use, which means that the necessary requirements “use”, “for goods or services” and “in the course of trade” must be met. Since trademark law only gives examples of which actions can be opposed, the ECJ’s statements and application therefore becomes important.

Regarding the requirement “use” it has been established that third parties must use the trade mark in their own marketing. The ECJ’s has also developed two criteria, active action and control, which needs to be met in order for the requirement to be met. However, there is some confusion in regards to the criteria and the use of these in relation to the requirement. There has also been a discussion about the concepts of rebranding and debranding in connection with “use”, where it is still unclear whether the concepts are included in the requirement. The requirement “in the course of trade” has been widely interpreted by the ECJ’s and is fulfilled when there is a profit motive. Usually, there is no further investigation in regards to the requirement except in certain cases, for example in marketing and import decisions. It also appears that the difficult divide between private use and use in the course of trade have resulted in some uncertainties.

The requirement “for goods or services” has also been widely interpreted by the ECJ’s. The court conveyed in its statement that it is important for an impression that a connection presides between the protected trademark and the good of the third party. However, the court has changed its judgment a number of times over the years, which has made it unclear how the requirement should be applied. The court has also focused on the trademarks’ functions and how these need to be damaged in order for an unauthorized use of the trademark to exist. This fourth requirement has also created uncertainty as neither the law, doctrine nor case law has clearly defined the trademarks’ functions and what is required for damage to exist. The function of origin appears to be the most fundamental function of the trademark, but in addition to this there are constantly new functions which the court considers to be legally relevant. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Innebörden av ensamrätten är att varumärkesinnehavare kan hindra tredje man från att använda innehavarens varumärke. Ensamrätten gäller endast om varumärkesanvändning föreligger vilket betyder att rekvisiten ”användning”, ”för varor eller tjänster” samt ”i näringsverksamhet” behöver vara uppfyllda. Eftersom att varumärkesrätten endast räknar upp exempel på handlingar som kan motsättas blir domstolens uttalanden och tillämpning av betydelse.

Gällande rekvisitet ”användning” har det konstaterats att tredje man ska använda varumärket i sin egen marknadskommunikation. EU-domstolen har även utvecklat två kriterier, aktiv åtgärd och kontroll, som ska föreligga för att rekvisitet ska uppfyllas. Dock uppstår oklarheter kring hur kriterierna ska... (More)
Innebörden av ensamrätten är att varumärkesinnehavare kan hindra tredje man från att använda innehavarens varumärke. Ensamrätten gäller endast om varumärkesanvändning föreligger vilket betyder att rekvisiten ”användning”, ”för varor eller tjänster” samt ”i näringsverksamhet” behöver vara uppfyllda. Eftersom att varumärkesrätten endast räknar upp exempel på handlingar som kan motsättas blir domstolens uttalanden och tillämpning av betydelse.

Gällande rekvisitet ”användning” har det konstaterats att tredje man ska använda varumärket i sin egen marknadskommunikation. EU-domstolen har även utvecklat två kriterier, aktiv åtgärd och kontroll, som ska föreligga för att rekvisitet ska uppfyllas. Dock uppstår oklarheter kring hur kriterierna ska användas i relation till rekvisitet. Det har även uppstått en diskussion kring begreppen rebranding och debranding i samband med ”användning”, där det fortfarande är oklart om begreppen faller in under rekvisitet. Rekvisitet ”i näringsverksamhet” har tolkats brett av EU-domstolen och uppfylls när det föreligger ett vinstsyfte. Det görs oftast inte någon närmare undersökning kring rekvisitet förutom i vissa enstaka fall, exempelvis i marknadsförings- och importmål. Det har även framkommit att gränsen mellan privat användning och användning i näringsverksamhet är svårdragen vilket har lett till oklarheter.

Även rekvisitet ”för varor eller tjänster” har tolkats brett av EU-domstolen som uttalat att det viktiga är att det ska finnas ett intryck att ett samband föreligger mellan det skyddade varumärket och tredje mans varor. Domstolen har dock ändrat sin bedömning ett antal gånger genom åren vilket har lett till oklarheter kring hur rekvisitet faktiskt ska tillämpas. Utöver de tre rekvisiten har domstolen lagt fokus på varumärkets funktioner och hur dessa behöver skadas för att en otillåten varumärkesanvändning ska anses föreligga. Det har på så sätt även växt fram ett fjärde rekvisit. Även skaderekvisitet har skapat en rättsosäkerhet då varken lagen, doktrin eller praxis tydligt har definierat varumärkets funktioner samt vad som krävs för att skada på dessa ska föreligga. Ursprungsangivelsefunktionen förefaller vara varumärkets grundläggande funktion men utöver denna tillkommer konstant nya funktioner som domstolen anser vara rättsligt relevanta. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Klisanin, Ivana LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH13 20212
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
varumärkesanvändning, rekvisit, användning, i näringsverksamhet, för varor och tjänster, varumärkets funktioner
language
Swedish
id
9072964
date added to LUP
2022-01-25 08:41:18
date last changed
2022-01-25 08:41:18
@misc{9072964,
  abstract     = {{The meaning of an exclusive right is that a trademark owner has the right to prevent a third party from using the owner’s trademark. The exclusive right only applies if there is a trademark use, which means that the necessary requirements “use”, “for goods or services” and “in the course of trade” must be met. Since trademark law only gives examples of which actions can be opposed, the ECJ’s statements and application therefore becomes important.

Regarding the requirement “use” it has been established that third parties must use the trade mark in their own marketing. The ECJ’s has also developed two criteria, active action and control, which needs to be met in order for the requirement to be met. However, there is some confusion in regards to the criteria and the use of these in relation to the requirement. There has also been a discussion about the concepts of rebranding and debranding in connection with “use”, where it is still unclear whether the concepts are included in the requirement. The requirement “in the course of trade” has been widely interpreted by the ECJ’s and is fulfilled when there is a profit motive. Usually, there is no further investigation in regards to the requirement except in certain cases, for example in marketing and import decisions. It also appears that the difficult divide between private use and use in the course of trade have resulted in some uncertainties.

The requirement “for goods or services” has also been widely interpreted by the ECJ’s. The court conveyed in its statement that it is important for an impression that a connection presides between the protected trademark and the good of the third party. However, the court has changed its judgment a number of times over the years, which has made it unclear how the requirement should be applied. The court has also focused on the trademarks’ functions and how these need to be damaged in order for an unauthorized use of the trademark to exist. This fourth requirement has also created uncertainty as neither the law, doctrine nor case law has clearly defined the trademarks’ functions and what is required for damage to exist. The function of origin appears to be the most fundamental function of the trademark, but in addition to this there are constantly new functions which the court considers to be legally relevant.}},
  author       = {{Klisanin, Ivana}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Varumärkesanvändning – En analys av rekvisiten i 1 kap. 10 § 1 st. 1 p. varumärkeslagen}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}