Companies object to use of trade marks in films
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1d68/e1d68834f0c27c7edb031843fedb198a6c0ddc32" alt=""
“We wanted to use a Mercedes because . . . this guy, this gangster would drive a Mercedes . . . but if you use Mercedes then clearly you have to get permission, and we asked for their permission and they refused it.”
Could Boyle have just gone ahead and used the trade marks, the IPKat wonders? The use might lead to unsavoury associations, bringing with it a risk of tarnishment, but is it trade mark use, and is trade mark use even needed? (We've had lots of cases about this, but the answer still isn't clear, and perhaps the answer is different for Art.5(2) anyway). This underlines the accute need for clear guidance from the ECJ on the issue for once and for all. Life would be rather difficult if trade mark owners can use their marks to stop real products being shown in films, or even just in films which are not to their liking. Actually, the outcome in this situation could have been worse - at least the companies don't seem to have argued that their product shapes are trade marks, the use of which they can control. Merpel notes with a degree of regret that it wasn't the association with a gangster that annoyed Mercedez, but rather the association with a slum.