Editor's note: VBB It's a cotton industry association, Has an EU registered graphic trademark "Cotton mark" , Designated for use in textile products. Gözze Is a cotton fiber as raw material fabric production enterprises, without VBB Is allowed to be used on its merchandise "Cotton mark" It's been around for decades. 2014 years 2 month, VBB will Gözze Take to court, Read on for the results!

[background] VBB It's a cotton industry association, Has an EU registered graphic trademark ( "Cotton mark" , Figure 1) Designated for use in textile products. Figure 1 VBB Licensed to its association members "Cotton mark" , To prove that the products used are of high quality cotton fibers. Gözze Is a cotton fiber as raw material fabric production enterprises, not VBB Is a licensed enterprise, It's used on merchandise "Cotton mark" It's been around for decades. 2014 years 2 month, VBB will Gözze Take to court, The reason is the logo used by the defendant (Figure 2) Infringement of its trademark rights. Figure 2 Gözze counterclaim, Consider involved "Cotton mark" Lack of significant distinguishing features, It shall be deemed invalid or revoked. Düsseldorf After the High court accepted the case, Decided to suspend the proceedings, And asked the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) In this case "Cotton mark" To make preliminary determinations on the use and revocation of.

[conclusion] The first question posed by the court of Admissibility, The use of a common trademark as a proof of quality mark, Can constitute "Community Trade mark Regulation of the Council of Europe (The first (EC) 207/2009 No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "Community trade marks Ordinance" ) The first 9. 1 Articles and regulations 15. 1 prescribed "Use of trademark" behavior? The answer from the European Court of Justice is no. The European Court of Justice held that, "Community trade marks Ordinance" The first 15. 1 Article shall be understood as, The act of attaching an EU trademark to a product solely to demonstrate its quality, Which does not constitute the provisions of this article "Real use (genuine use) " . but, If the above attached behavior can also assure consumers that the attached trademark products are controlled by a single enterprise and its quality is guaranteed, That is, the trademark has "Indicative source" Basic function of, Can be determined to exist "Real use" . The second question from the court of Admissibility, If the answer to the first question is yes, Then, when the trademark owner does not carry out regular quality monitoring on the licensee to ensure that the corresponding goods meet the public's quality expectations, Can be applied in combination "Community trade marks Ordinance" The first 52. 1. a) Articles and regulations 7. 1. g) The provisions of the Article nullify the trademark in dispute, Or by comparison (mutatis mutandis) Applicable regulation 73. c) Revoking the trademark in dispute? The European Court of Justice answered that question in the negative. First of all, it should be clear, Not only control 7. 1. g) prescribed "Deceive the public" FACTS, Emergence control 7 Other circumstances specified in this Article, Can also apply "Community trade marks Ordinance" The first 52. 1. a) article, Invalidation of a trademark. In addition, Determine that a trademark exists at the time of registration "The risk of deceiving the public" It should be dismissed, It needs to be proved that the mark itself poses such a risk. Therefore, The answer to the first part of the second question is, It is not only because the trademark owner fails to ensure the public's expectation of the quality of the corresponding goods, Immediate reference "Community trade marks Ordinance" The first 52. 1. a) Articles and regulations 7. 1. g) article, The trademark in dispute shall be declared invalid. As for the second half of the second question ( "The comparison is applicable 73. c) Revoking the trademark in dispute" ——Translator's note) , The European Court of Justice stated that, "Community trade marks Ordinance" The first 66 Article to clause 74 Article is about EU collective trademark (collective EU trademarks) Stipulation of, Clearly define the types of trademarks to which the specification applies, Therefore, Can't "comparison (mutatis mutandis) " Applicable to ordinary EU trademarks.

[conclusion] The European Court of Justice has reminded us again in its decision, In accordance with "Community trade marks Ordinance" The first 15. 1 Provision of article, The basic functions of the trademark must be ensured in use, That is, consumers can identify the source of the goods or services specified in the trademark registration. If the use of a trademark does not guarantee that the consumer recognizes that the goods or services using the trademark originated from a single production or service enterprise, And be responsible for the quality of goods produced or services provided, Then such use mode cannot realize the basic function of trademark indicating the origin of goods, Accordingly, the provisions of the Ordinance, The trademark may be invalidated for not using it. It's also worth noting, The provisions of the Regulation on collective marks apply only to specific types of marks. Therefore, when deciding whether to register an ordinary trademark or a collective trademark, The way the trademark is used should be taken into account.

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel source: Esabaril (ELZABURU)