Expansive copyright notices; another ECJ dilution reference
FTC complaint over copyright notices
If the answer to the first question is in the negative: is a mark which has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State protected in that Member State under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94, so that a prohibit
ion limited to that Member State may be issued?
The IPKat reckon that the answer to question 1 is yes. In General Motors v Yplon the ECJ said in connection with national marks
Territorially, the condition [of having a reputation] is fulfilled when, in the terms of Article 5(2) of the Directive, the trade mark has a reputation 'in the Member State‘. In the absence of any definition of the Community provision in this respect, a trade mark cannot be required to have a reputation 'throughout‘ the territory of the Member State. It is sufficient for it to exist in a substantial part of it.
By analogy, a reputation in a substantial part of the EU should satisfy Art.9(1)(c). In other areas of CTM law, a single Member State is considered a substantial part of the EU so QED.
Forbes reports that a coalition of major companies including Microsoft and Google, 
the Computer and Communications Industry Association, has complained to the US Federal Trade Commission that content providers are placing overextensive copyright notices on their information offerings. The targets of the complaint include Major League Baseball, the National Football League and NBC Universal and Dreamworks Animation Inc. The argument is that the overly wide copyright notices discourage consumers from making legal use of content.
The IPKat wonders if this complaint will really make much difference – do consumers (except for IP lawyers who should know better) ever actually read the copyright notices?
the Computer and Communications Industry Association, has complained to the US Federal Trade Commission that content providers are placing overextensive copyright notices on their information offerings. The targets of the complaint include Major League Baseball, the National Football League and NBC Universal and Dreamworks Animation Inc. The argument is that the overly wide copyright notices discourage consumers from making legal use of content.The IPKat wonders if this complaint will really make much difference – do consumers (except for IP lawyers who should know better) ever actually read the copyright notices?
ECJ TM reference
The IPKat notes details of a new reference to the ECJ on the UK-IPO website. The court in PAGO International C-301/07 has asked:
Is a Community trade mark protected in the whole of the Community as a ‘trade mark with a reputation’ for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (Regulation 40/94) if it has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State?
The IPKat notes details of a new reference to the ECJ on the UK-IPO website. The court in PAGO International C-301/07 has asked:
Is a Community trade mark protected in the whole of the Community as a ‘trade mark with a reputation’ for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (Regulation 40/94) if it has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative: is a mark which has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State protected in that Member State under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94, so that a prohibit
ion limited to that Member State may be issued?The IPKat reckon that the answer to question 1 is yes. In General Motors v Yplon the ECJ said in connection with national marks
Territorially, the condition [of having a reputation] is fulfilled when, in the terms of Article 5(2) of the Directive, the trade mark has a reputation 'in the Member State‘. In the absence of any definition of the Community provision in this respect, a trade mark cannot be required to have a reputation 'throughout‘ the territory of the Member State. It is sufficient for it to exist in a substantial part of it.
By analogy, a reputation in a substantial part of the EU should satisfy Art.9(1)(c). In other areas of CTM law, a single Member State is considered a substantial part of the EU so QED.