Knowledge

Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v Boots

Source đź“ť

310:(the "Baby Dry" case) is a good counterpoint to Windsurfing Chiemsee. There, the ECJ allowed the mark to be registered based on a “synctactical change,” thus perhaps lowering the standard for trademark subject matter in the sense that there was no secondary meaning (consumer perception) requirement. Because “Baby Dry” was a “synctactically unusual juxtaposition” that was uncommon in the English language, the mark was distinctive, and therefore registrable despite the charge of descriptiveness contained in the initial rejection of the application. 136: 74: 33: 280:
arguing that because the mark consisted of the name of the lake, it was unregistrable under Article 3(1)(c) of the Harmonization Directive because it was a “geographically descriptive” mark. The case reached the national court of last resort, which referred the question whether any and all registrations for geographically descriptive marks must be refused under the
296:
Instead, the ECJ held that geographically descriptive marks are not categorically unregistrable, with the caveat that the registrant must show that consumers have come to associate the mark with the registrant’s products. This is in line with the American law on the subject, where the cases rely on
279:
is the name of the largest lake in Bavaria, Germany. A company located close to the lake registered the trademark “Chiemsee” as a picture mark to be used in connection with sportswear under German law. A competitor also using a picture mark with the designation “Chiemsee” took objection to this,
292:
The court did not accept the defendant’s argument that because the word “Chiemsee” is an indication that designates geographical origin, it must remain available for use by others. The court also did not simply allow for registration on the basis that the defendant was using a picture mark that
263:(“ECJ”) ruling that geographic marks can be registered, as long as the public associates that mark with the trademark owner, and not with the geographic area. According to most systems of trademark law internationally, a mark that designates a geographic place is insufficiently 46: 353: 325:
Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions - und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber & Franz Attenberger, Cases C 108/97 and C 109/97 (ECJ, May 4, 1999)
52: 336:
Procter & Gamble Company v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Case C-383/99 P, 2001 Eur. Ct. Rpts. 0000 (Eur. Ct. Just. 20 September 2001)
200: 172: 179: 186: 168: 237: 219: 117: 60: 157: 150: 84: 306: 193: 264: 260: 99: 146: 95: 17: 281: 337: 347: 135: 256: 276: 102:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. 326: 129: 67: 26: 91: 293:
looked different from the plaintiff’s picture mark.
354:Court of Justice of the European Union case law 8: 61:Learn how and when to remove these messages 169:"Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v Boots" 252:Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v. Boots 238:Learn how and when to remove this message 220:Learn how and when to remove this message 118:Learn how and when to remove this message 18:Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v. Boots 318: 156:Please improve this article by adding 297:evidence about consumer perceptions. 7: 284:of December 21, 1988, to the ECJ. 282:First Council Directive 89/104/EEC 25: 42:This article has multiple issues. 134: 72: 31: 307:Procter & Gamble Co. v OHIM 50:or discuss these issues on the 1: 158:secondary or tertiary sources 98:the claims made and adding 370: 261:European Court of Justice 271:Background of the Case 145:relies excessively on 288:The Court’s Decision 267:, legally speaking. 259:law decision by the 83:possibly contains 248: 247: 240: 230: 229: 222: 204: 128: 127: 120: 85:original research 65: 16:(Redirected from 361: 339: 334: 328: 323: 243: 236: 225: 218: 214: 211: 205: 203: 162: 138: 130: 123: 116: 112: 109: 103: 100:inline citations 76: 75: 68: 57: 35: 34: 27: 21: 369: 368: 364: 363: 362: 360: 359: 358: 344: 343: 342: 335: 331: 324: 320: 316: 303: 290: 273: 244: 233: 232: 231: 226: 215: 209: 206: 163: 161: 155: 151:primary sources 139: 124: 113: 107: 104: 89: 77: 73: 36: 32: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 367: 365: 357: 356: 346: 345: 341: 340: 329: 317: 315: 312: 302: 299: 289: 286: 272: 269: 246: 245: 228: 227: 142: 140: 133: 126: 125: 80: 78: 71: 66: 40: 39: 37: 30: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 366: 355: 352: 351: 349: 338: 333: 330: 327: 322: 319: 313: 311: 309: 308: 300: 298: 294: 287: 285: 283: 278: 270: 268: 266: 262: 258: 254: 253: 242: 239: 224: 221: 213: 202: 199: 195: 192: 188: 185: 181: 178: 174: 171: â€“  170: 166: 165:Find sources: 159: 153: 152: 148: 143:This article 141: 137: 132: 131: 122: 119: 111: 101: 97: 93: 87: 86: 81:This article 79: 70: 69: 64: 62: 55: 54: 49: 48: 43: 38: 29: 28: 19: 332: 321: 305: 304: 301:Related Case 295: 291: 274: 251: 250: 249: 234: 216: 207: 197: 190: 183: 176: 164: 144: 114: 105: 82: 58: 51: 45: 44:Please help 41: 265:distinctive 314:References 180:newspapers 147:references 92:improve it 47:improve it 257:trademark 96:verifying 53:talk page 348:Category 277:Chiemsee 210:May 2013 108:May 2013 194:scholar 90:Please 196:  189:  182:  175:  167:  255:is a 201:JSTOR 187:books 275:The 173:news 149:to 94:by 350:: 160:. 56:. 241:) 235:( 223:) 217:( 212:) 208:( 198:· 191:· 184:· 177:· 154:. 121:) 115:( 110:) 106:( 88:. 63:) 59:( 20:)

Index

Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v. Boots
improve it
talk page
Learn how and when to remove these messages
original research
improve it
verifying
inline citations
Learn how and when to remove this message

references
primary sources
secondary or tertiary sources
"Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v Boots"
news
newspapers
books
scholar
JSTOR
Learn how and when to remove this message
Learn how and when to remove this message
trademark
European Court of Justice
distinctive
Chiemsee
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
Procter & Gamble Co. v OHIM


Category

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑