恶意商标申请:丹麦的纠正错误以及为什么比荷卢是下一个

A. Tsoutsanis
{"title":"恶意商标申请:丹麦的纠正错误以及为什么比荷卢是下一个","authors":"A. Tsoutsanis","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPT241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trade mark grabbing. It happens a lot. Anywhere. Anytime. This article discusses the most recent developments in European Trade Mark Law for preventing cross-border trade mark grabbing. It outlines the current state of play in Europe on when right owners are able to invalidate bad faith trade mark applications on the grounds of earlier use. It discusses the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 27 June 2013 in the case Malaysia Dairy v Yakult. The author holds that the CJEU was correct in finding that the implementing legislation in Denmark violates the European Trade Mark Directive. Apart from Denmark, the author also discusses the impact on the Benelux, concluding that the Benelux violates the European Trade Mark Directive. The article also explains some relevant angles on how to ensure that European Directives are properly transposed in national legislation. The article concludes with the most recent legislative changes in this field, which is likely to have a big impact on the ability for brand owners in 2014/2015 to take action against bad faith trade mark applications. Note: This is a revised version of the same article published in the Netherlands in \"Berichten Industriele Eigendom\" 2013 July/August p. 254-260 in honour of fellow editors mr J.L.R.A. Huydecoper and mr. P.J.M. Steinhauser. Benefitting from separate peer-review and updating, this amended version is now published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2014 Vol 9, Issue 2, p. 118-124.","PeriodicalId":114907,"journal":{"name":"Global Business Issues eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trade Mark Applications in Bad Faith: Righting Wrong in Denmark and Why the Benelux is Next\",\"authors\":\"A. Tsoutsanis\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JIPLP/JPT241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Trade mark grabbing. It happens a lot. Anywhere. Anytime. This article discusses the most recent developments in European Trade Mark Law for preventing cross-border trade mark grabbing. It outlines the current state of play in Europe on when right owners are able to invalidate bad faith trade mark applications on the grounds of earlier use. It discusses the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 27 June 2013 in the case Malaysia Dairy v Yakult. The author holds that the CJEU was correct in finding that the implementing legislation in Denmark violates the European Trade Mark Directive. Apart from Denmark, the author also discusses the impact on the Benelux, concluding that the Benelux violates the European Trade Mark Directive. The article also explains some relevant angles on how to ensure that European Directives are properly transposed in national legislation. The article concludes with the most recent legislative changes in this field, which is likely to have a big impact on the ability for brand owners in 2014/2015 to take action against bad faith trade mark applications. Note: This is a revised version of the same article published in the Netherlands in \\\"Berichten Industriele Eigendom\\\" 2013 July/August p. 254-260 in honour of fellow editors mr J.L.R.A. Huydecoper and mr. P.J.M. Steinhauser. Benefitting from separate peer-review and updating, this amended version is now published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2014 Vol 9, Issue 2, p. 118-124.\",\"PeriodicalId\":114907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Business Issues eJournal\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Business Issues eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPT241\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Business Issues eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPT241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抢注商标。这种情况经常发生。任何地方。任何时候。本文讨论了欧洲商标法在防止跨境商标抢注方面的最新进展。它概述了权利人何时能够以早期使用为理由使恶意商标申请无效的欧洲现状。它讨论了欧盟法院(CJEU) 2013年6月27日在马来西亚乳业诉养乐多案中的最新决定。笔者认为,欧洲法院认定丹麦的实施立法违反《欧洲商标指令》是正确的。除了丹麦之外,作者还讨论了对比荷卢的影响,结论是比荷卢违反了欧洲商标指令。文章还解释了如何确保欧洲指令在国家立法中得到适当转换的一些相关角度。文章总结了这一领域最新的立法变化,这可能会对2014/2015年品牌所有者对恶意商标申请采取行动的能力产生重大影响。注:本文为荷兰《Berichten Industriele Eigendom》2013年7月/ 8月第254-260页同一篇文章的修订版,以纪念同行编辑J.L.R.A. Huydecoper先生和P.J.M. Steinhauser先生。得益于单独的同行评审和更新,该修订版本现已发表在《知识产权法与实践杂志》2014年第9卷第2期,第118-124页。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trade Mark Applications in Bad Faith: Righting Wrong in Denmark and Why the Benelux is Next
Trade mark grabbing. It happens a lot. Anywhere. Anytime. This article discusses the most recent developments in European Trade Mark Law for preventing cross-border trade mark grabbing. It outlines the current state of play in Europe on when right owners are able to invalidate bad faith trade mark applications on the grounds of earlier use. It discusses the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 27 June 2013 in the case Malaysia Dairy v Yakult. The author holds that the CJEU was correct in finding that the implementing legislation in Denmark violates the European Trade Mark Directive. Apart from Denmark, the author also discusses the impact on the Benelux, concluding that the Benelux violates the European Trade Mark Directive. The article also explains some relevant angles on how to ensure that European Directives are properly transposed in national legislation. The article concludes with the most recent legislative changes in this field, which is likely to have a big impact on the ability for brand owners in 2014/2015 to take action against bad faith trade mark applications. Note: This is a revised version of the same article published in the Netherlands in "Berichten Industriele Eigendom" 2013 July/August p. 254-260 in honour of fellow editors mr J.L.R.A. Huydecoper and mr. P.J.M. Steinhauser. Benefitting from separate peer-review and updating, this amended version is now published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2014 Vol 9, Issue 2, p. 118-124.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信