Marks with a reputation have won a major battle. The freeriding in the slipstream of well known marks can be forbidden more easy. This follows from the judgment bt the ECJ given on 18 June in the l’Oréal/Bellure case. The ECJ clarifies when exactly an advantage is taken unfairly by a third party, so that the trademark owner can act on it. This is the case “where that party seeks by that use to ride on the coat-tails of the mark with a reputation in order to benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of that mark and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the mark’s image.” L’Oréal/Bellure was about comparing lists, on which well known perfumes such as Trésor, Miracle, Anaís Anaís and Noa Noa were mentioned. All made within the group of L’Oréal. At the same time, imitation perfumes with a comparable odour and - to some extent - similar names were mentioned. L’Oréal wished to stop this comparison and called upon its marks with a repute (article 5 (2) of the Trademark Directive). But Bellure argued that it is all correct: it is an imitation, it almost smells real and the name is not really similar. Nobody is confused. Nothing wrong with it, is it? Yet Bellure profited from the good repute of the famous marks. By closely following these, Bellure was selling more bottles. Nobody thought to be buying the real perfumes, and it could even be that L’Oréal did not sell one bottle less. But Bellure made an additional profit because its freeride on L'Oréal's marketing power. That can be stopped, the judgment is clear. In short: (1) seeking to ride on the coat-tails (2) in order to benefit (3) without paying. Then it is not allowed. The owners of famous marks clap their hands. Maarten Haak
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Marks with a reputation have won a major battle. The freeriding in the slipstream of well known marks can be forbidden more easy. This follows from the judgment bt the ECJ given on 18 June in the l’Oréal/Bellure case. The ECJ clarifies when exactly an advantage is taken unfairly by a third party, so that the trademark owner can act on it. This is the case “where that party seeks by that use to ride on the coat-tails of the mark with a reputation in order to benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of that mark and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the mark’s image.” L’Oréal/Bellure was about comparing lists, on which well known perfumes such as Trésor, Miracle, Anaís Anaís and Noa Noa were mentioned. All made within the group of L’Oréal. At the same time, imitation perfumes with a comparable odour and - to some extent - similar names were mentioned. L’Oréal wished to stop this comparison and called upon its marks with a repute (article 5 (2) of the Trademark Directive). But Bellure argued that it is all correct: it is an imitation, it almost smells real and the name is not really similar. Nobody is confused. Nothing wrong with it, is it? Yet Bellure profited from the good repute of the famous marks. By closely following these, Bellure was selling more bottles. Nobody thought to be buying the real perfumes, and it could even be that L’Oréal did not sell one bottle less. But Bellure made an additional profit because its freeride on L'Oréal's marketing power. That can be stopped, the judgment is clear. In short: (1) seeking to ride on the coat-tails (2) in order to benefit (3) without paying. Then it is not allowed. The owners of famous marks clap their hands. Maarten Haak