Trade Mark Registration, Public Policy, Morality and Fundamental Rights

C. Geiger, Leonardo Machado Pontes
{"title":"Trade Mark Registration, Public Policy, Morality and Fundamental Rights","authors":"C. Geiger, Leonardo Machado Pontes","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3009170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to EU and international trade mark law, signs that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality may be denied registration. Public policy and morality are open legal concepts that provide a typical entrance door for fundamental rights, allowing the taking into account of ethical values when defining the content and scope of intellectual property law. As IP offices are EU or national institutions that are bound by fundamental rights protection, the conformity of their practice needs to be tested with regard to these higher constitutional principles. In this article, we will verify if the current practices with regard to the refusal to register immoral trade marks on morality and public policy grounds take sufficiently into account fundamental rights, and in particular the freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business of trade marks applicants. If the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) will be given the main attention, those of the General Court of the European Union (GCEU), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the EFTA Court will also be considered. The European practice will then be compared to the recent case law on this topic in the United States, in particular to the Supreme Court decision Matal v. Tam of June 2017, already considered by some commentators as a historical development as it overturns a long tradition of trade mark precedent barring from protection offensive and disparaging trade marks. We conclude that the implications of fundamental rights protection in the EU might lead to different results than in the US and that the practice developed by the EUIPO with regard to immoral trade marks is in general consistent with the standards required by the European legal order. However, there might be some (rare) situations where a new approach could be needed in the future, for example when the trade mark application can qualify as mixed expression, both commercial and political or artistic in nature.","PeriodicalId":432577,"journal":{"name":"Center for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper Series","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Center for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3009170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

According to EU and international trade mark law, signs that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality may be denied registration. Public policy and morality are open legal concepts that provide a typical entrance door for fundamental rights, allowing the taking into account of ethical values when defining the content and scope of intellectual property law. As IP offices are EU or national institutions that are bound by fundamental rights protection, the conformity of their practice needs to be tested with regard to these higher constitutional principles. In this article, we will verify if the current practices with regard to the refusal to register immoral trade marks on morality and public policy grounds take sufficiently into account fundamental rights, and in particular the freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business of trade marks applicants. If the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) will be given the main attention, those of the General Court of the European Union (GCEU), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the EFTA Court will also be considered. The European practice will then be compared to the recent case law on this topic in the United States, in particular to the Supreme Court decision Matal v. Tam of June 2017, already considered by some commentators as a historical development as it overturns a long tradition of trade mark precedent barring from protection offensive and disparaging trade marks. We conclude that the implications of fundamental rights protection in the EU might lead to different results than in the US and that the practice developed by the EUIPO with regard to immoral trade marks is in general consistent with the standards required by the European legal order. However, there might be some (rare) situations where a new approach could be needed in the future, for example when the trade mark application can qualify as mixed expression, both commercial and political or artistic in nature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
商标注册、公共政策、道德与基本权利
根据欧盟和国际商标法,与公共政策或公认的道德原则相抵触的标志可能会被拒绝注册。公共政策和道德是开放的法律概念,为基本权利提供了一个典型的入口,允许在定义知识产权法的内容和范围时考虑伦理价值。由于知识产权局是受基本权利保护约束的欧盟或国家机构,它们的做法是否符合这些更高的宪法原则需要进行检验。在本文中,我们将验证目前以道德和公共政策为由拒绝注册不道德商标的做法是否充分考虑了商标申请人的基本权利,特别是言论自由和经营自由。如果欧盟知识产权局(EUIPO)的决定将得到主要关注,那么欧盟普通法院(GCEU)、欧盟法院(CJEU)、欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)和欧洲自由贸易联盟法院的决定也将得到考虑。然后将欧洲的做法与美国最近关于这一主题的判例法进行比较,特别是与2017年6月最高法院对Matal诉Tam的判决进行比较,一些评论员已经认为这是一个历史性的发展,因为它推翻了禁止保护冒犯性和贬低性商标的悠久传统。我们的结论是,欧盟基本权利保护的影响可能会导致与美国不同的结果,欧盟知识产权局对不道德商标的做法总体上符合欧洲法律秩序所要求的标准。然而,在某些(罕见的)情况下,未来可能需要一种新的方法,例如,当商标申请具有商业和政治或艺术性质的混合表达资格时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trade Mark Registration, Public Policy, Morality and Fundamental Rights Intellectual Property Rights in International Trade Law: Challenging Their Original Justification? Towards a Balanced International Legal Framework for Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Civil Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Public Consultation on the Efficiency of Proceedings and Accessibility of Measures. CEIPI's Comments on the Public Consultation, with a Focus on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1