Varumärkesregistrering och yttrandefrihet - En undersökning av moralundantaget som inskränkning
(2024) LAGF03 20241Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Varumärken är av stor vikt för företag, då de utgör en ekonomisk resurs, kvalitetsstämpel och förmedlar ett budskap. Av naturliga skäl finns det därför ett intresse att registrera varumärken, för att erhålla de förmåner, såsom bl.a. den ensamrätt, en sådan registrering innebär. När en varumärkesansökan inkommer genomför registreringsmyndigheten en prövning mot bl.a. absoluta registreringshinder. Ett av dessa återfinns i artikel 7.1(f) varumärkesförordningen, vilket innebär att varumärken som strider mot allmän moral och allmän ordning inte kommer erhålla registrering. För att klargöra om ett varumärke är (o)förenligt med artikeln görs en omfattande prövning både gentemot rekvisiten, och gentemot sammanhanget varumärket förekommer i och... (More)
- Varumärken är av stor vikt för företag, då de utgör en ekonomisk resurs, kvalitetsstämpel och förmedlar ett budskap. Av naturliga skäl finns det därför ett intresse att registrera varumärken, för att erhålla de förmåner, såsom bl.a. den ensamrätt, en sådan registrering innebär. När en varumärkesansökan inkommer genomför registreringsmyndigheten en prövning mot bl.a. absoluta registreringshinder. Ett av dessa återfinns i artikel 7.1(f) varumärkesförordningen, vilket innebär att varumärken som strider mot allmän moral och allmän ordning inte kommer erhålla registrering. För att klargöra om ett varumärke är (o)förenligt med artikeln görs en omfattande prövning både gentemot rekvisiten, och gentemot sammanhanget varumärket förekommer i och dess eventuella exponering i samhället. Artikeln samt prövningen har lett till att frågan väckts avseende hur dessa förhåller sig till den yttrandefrihet en varumärkessökande eventuellt åtnjuter under Europakonventionen. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda huruvida ett förbud mot registrering grundat på artikel 7.1(f) varumärkesförordningen utgör en yttrandefrihetsinskränkning och i sådana fall en tillåten sådan.
I uppsatsen redogörs för gällande rätt i form av artikel 10 Europakonventionen och artikel 7.1(f) varumärkesförordningen, samt hur lagstiftare och domstolar har förhållit sig till en eventuell ämneskonflikt på området. Mot bakgrund av detta analyseras sedan huruvida artikel 7.1(f) varumärkesförordningen utgör en inskränkning av yttrandefriheten och om den i sådana fall kan utgöra en tillåten sådan utifrån artikel 10.2 Europakonventionen.
Utifrån dessa studier av lagstiftning, praxis utvecklad av EU-domstolen och Europadomstolen samt doktrin kan konstateras att lagstiftningen inte löser en eventuell konflikt varför vägledning får sökas i praxis och doktrin. Det framkommer att domstolarna haft möjlighet att ge ett vägledande klargörande i frågan men att de tycks ha missat detta tillfälle, varför doktrin kommer närmast att ge ett eventuellt klargörande, även om två olika resonemang kan utläsas i denna. Sammanfattningsvis konstateras att, oavsett argumentationslinje i doktrinen, finns det luckor i resonemanget varför området fortfarande tycks vara oklart och vidare utredning behövs. (Less) - Abstract
- Trademarks are of great importance to companies as they constitute a financial resource, a promise of quality and convey a message. Therefore, there is an obvious interest in registering trademarks to obtain benefits, such as exclusive rights, which such registration entails. When a trademark application is received, the registration authority carries out an examination against, among other things, absolute grounds for refusal. One of these is to be found in Article 7(1)(f) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), which implicates that trademarks that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality will not obtain registration. In order to clarify whether a trademark is (in)compatible with the article, a... (More)
- Trademarks are of great importance to companies as they constitute a financial resource, a promise of quality and convey a message. Therefore, there is an obvious interest in registering trademarks to obtain benefits, such as exclusive rights, which such registration entails. When a trademark application is received, the registration authority carries out an examination against, among other things, absolute grounds for refusal. One of these is to be found in Article 7(1)(f) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), which implicates that trademarks that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality will not obtain registration. In order to clarify whether a trademark is (in)compatible with the article, a comprehensive examination is made both against the requirements, and against the context in which the trademark appears and its possible exposure in society. The article and its examination have led to the question being raised regarding how these relate to the freedom of expression that a trademark applicant may enjoy under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether a ban on registration based on Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR constitutes a restriction of freedom of expression and, if so, a permissible one.
The essay describes the applicable law in the form of Article 10 ECHR and Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, as well as how legislators and courts have dealt with a possible conflict of subject matter in this area. In the light of this, it is then analysed whether Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR constitutes a restriction of freedom of expression and, if so, whether, in such cases, it may constitute a permissible restriction under Article 10(2) of the ECHR.
Based on these studies of legislation, case law developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as doctrine, it can be concluded that the legislation does not solve a possible conflict, which is why guidance must be sought in case law and doctrine. It appears that the courts had the opportunity to provide an indicative clarification on the issue, but that they seem to have missed this opportunity, which is why doctrine will come closest to providing a possible clarification, even if two different lines of argument can be found here. In summary, it is concluded that, regardless of the line of argumentation in the doctrine, there are gaps in the reasoning, which is why the area still seems to be unclear and further investigation is needed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9152987
- author
- Hackl, Sonja LU
- supervisor
-
- Mariya Senyk LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Immaterialrätt, EU-rätt, Varumärkesrätt, Yttrandefrihet, Europakonventionen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9152987
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-26 11:49:58
- date last changed
- 2024-06-26 11:49:58
@misc{9152987,
abstract = {{Trademarks are of great importance to companies as they constitute a financial resource, a promise of quality and convey a message. Therefore, there is an obvious interest in registering trademarks to obtain benefits, such as exclusive rights, which such registration entails. When a trademark application is received, the registration authority carries out an examination against, among other things, absolute grounds for refusal. One of these is to be found in Article 7(1)(f) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), which implicates that trademarks that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality will not obtain registration. In order to clarify whether a trademark is (in)compatible with the article, a comprehensive examination is made both against the requirements, and against the context in which the trademark appears and its possible exposure in society. The article and its examination have led to the question being raised regarding how these relate to the freedom of expression that a trademark applicant may enjoy under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether a ban on registration based on Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR constitutes a restriction of freedom of expression and, if so, a permissible one.
The essay describes the applicable law in the form of Article 10 ECHR and Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, as well as how legislators and courts have dealt with a possible conflict of subject matter in this area. In the light of this, it is then analysed whether Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR constitutes a restriction of freedom of expression and, if so, whether, in such cases, it may constitute a permissible restriction under Article 10(2) of the ECHR.
Based on these studies of legislation, case law developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as doctrine, it can be concluded that the legislation does not solve a possible conflict, which is why guidance must be sought in case law and doctrine. It appears that the courts had the opportunity to provide an indicative clarification on the issue, but that they seem to have missed this opportunity, which is why doctrine will come closest to providing a possible clarification, even if two different lines of argument can be found here. In summary, it is concluded that, regardless of the line of argumentation in the doctrine, there are gaps in the reasoning, which is why the area still seems to be unclear and further investigation is needed.}},
author = {{Hackl, Sonja}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Varumärkesregistrering och yttrandefrihet - En undersökning av moralundantaget som inskränkning}},
year = {{2024}},
}