Editor's note: The ruling involved two ancient rivals——Automobile manufacturers and automobile parts manufacturers——Between the new controversy. American Ford Motor International Corporation to Turin, Italy (Torino) Initiate proceedings in court, Think Italian parts maker Wheeltrims The wheel decoration products produced by the company without permission infringe its registered graphic trademark. Read on for more details!

[background]

The ruling involved two ancient rivals——Automobile manufacturers and automobile parts manufacturers——Between the new controversy. Ford Motor International (Hereinafter referred to as "Ford Company" ) Turin, Italy (Torino) Initiate proceedings in court, Think Italian parts maker Wheeltrims The wheel decoration products produced by the company without permission infringe its registered graphic trademark. Ford believes that the defendant's production behavior constitutes trademark infringement, And do not belong to "European Council Regulation on Community Trade Marks (The first (EC) 207/2009 No) " (Have been "Eu trade mark regulation (The first (EU) 2015/2424 No) " (failure, be "Eu trade mark regulation (The first (EU) 2017/1001 No) " replace) replace) A prescribed fair use exception, The reason is that, Controversial wheel decoration products appear "FORD" trademark, It is not intended to indicate the intended use of the product or is necessary to fulfill other descriptive functions. Defendant argues, The production of components and the use of corresponding trademarks of composite products do not require the consent of the trademark owner, In accordance with "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of designs (The first 98/71/EC No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "European Union regulation 98/71/EC Number instruction" ) The first 14 Bar sum "European Parliament Community Design Regulation (The first (EC) 6/2002 No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "European Union regulation (EC) 6/2002 No" ) The first 110 striped "Maintenance clause" stipulation, The right holder shall not prohibit any third party from using specific parts to repair the product for the purpose of restoring the original appearance of the combined product. The Turin court held that, From the point of view of trademark law, The defendant infringed on the plaintiff's trademark rights. but, The court does not determine the above rules for design "Maintenance clause" Whether it will affect the identification of trademark protection issues involved. Therefore, The court decided to stay the case, And asked the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) To make a preliminary determination on the following questions: The use of another's trademark for the purpose of restoring the original appearance of a composite product, Whether applicable "Maintenance clause" The determination does not constitute infringement?

[conclusion]

"European Union regulation 98/71/EC Number instruction" and "European Union regulation (EC) 6/2002 No" The limitation clause is set up only for the protection of design rights, It does not involve the protection of trademark rights, It can also be inferred from the above clause, The application of the above restrictions shall not be in conflict with other EU laws or the laws of Member States. Therefore, The European Court of Justice 2015 years 10 month 6 adjudication, "European Union regulation 98/71/EC Number instruction" The first 14 Bar sum "European Union regulation (EC) 6/2002 No" The first 110 Article related "Maintenance clause" Stipulation of, It shall not be extended to be an exception to trademark law. correspondingly, Without the trademark owner's permission, The parts manufacturer shall not use the mark exactly consistent with the registered trademark on the parts for the purpose of restoring the original appearance of the combined products.

[comment]

The decision by the European Court of Justice is an important victory in the long-running battle between composite manufacturers and component makers. The friction between the two market giants starts with trademarks——Whether the use of another's trademark for the purpose of indicating the intended use of a component constitutes "1988 Directive of the First Council on the harmonization of trademark laws in the Member States (The first 89/104/EEC No) " The first 6. 1 Exceptions to the provisions of the article (Gillette case, Case number: ECLI: EU: C: 2005: 177) . The ruling adopted a strict interpretation of the relevant legal provisions, If there is no other way to communicate information to the public, Using someone else's trademark to convey a message is reasonable. In this case, The European Court of Justice again adopted a strict interpretation, Add a red line in the area of intellectual property protection, Component manufacturers are prohibited from quoting "Maintenance clause" , for "Unlicensed use of a manufacturer's trademark of a combination product for the purpose of restoring the original appearance of the combination product" exculpate.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights