Editor's note: The trademark owner attempts to recover the licensee's claim to the EU trademark "CULDESAC" (Hereinafter referred to as "Trademark involved" ) The use of the license caused controversy. so, The co-owner of the trademark involved (Two natural persons) , Sue CULDESAC COMUNICACIÓN, S. L. The company infringes the trademark right involved. Read on for the results!

[background] Eu trademark "CULDESAC" (Hereinafter referred to as "Trademark involved" ) Co-owner of (Two natural persons) , Sue CULDESAC COMUNICACIÓN, S. L. company (Hereinafter referred to as "CULDESAC S. L. company" ) Infringement of trademark rights involved. The plaintiff petitioned for a temporary injunction against the defendant, include: Immediately seize the goods infringing the trademark rights involved, And temporarily prohibit the production of goods or services that infringe the trademark rights involved, supply, Place an order, promotion, Commercial activities such as distribution or sale. remove, Destroy or judicially detain the commodities in which the trademarks involved are used, website, media, file, Advertising and office materials, etc. This case is a dispute caused by the trademark owner's attempt to recover the licensee's use license of the trademark involved. 2006 years 6 month "CULDESAC" The joint owner of the trademark is jointly formed with two other partners CULDESAC S. L. company. after, The two co-owners registered the trademark application as an EU trademark, The defendant company raised no objection during the period. The Defendant company has been using the trademarks in question pursuant to an informal oral cooperation agreement with the Plaintiff. 2015 years 7 Due to the change of company policy, The trademark owner involved notifies the defendant, Decided to withdraw the license to use the trademark. The court of first instance granted the application for a temporary injunction, The court of second instance dismissed the defendant's appeal.

[conclusion] First of all, The court emphasized, In temporary relief, The parties cannot ask the court to respond to the law "anticipate (prejudged) " The facts of the case (The court heard that such claims had rarely been made in previous industrial property cases) . The court can only rely on the materials and evidence provided by the applicant for a temporary injunction, make "AD hoc and situational assessment" . then, The court stated in its ruling, Appraise the plaintiff "Stand a chance of success (fumus boni iuris) " And whether the claim has sufficient legal basis, Two factors should be considered. The first factor is, Case facts. If the court on the plaintiff submitted the relevant evidence after review, That the facts of the case don't add up, Then the court will find that the plaintiff does not have sufficient support for his claim "Prima facie evidence (prima facie) " . The second factor is, The probability of the plaintiff's legal consequences arising from the facts of the case. To understand the situation, Do not proceed with the case "anticipate" On the premise of, The court should make a preliminary analysis of whether the facts of the case presented by the plaintiff in support of their claim can be applied to the relevant law. In this case, To determine whether the plaintiff's application has sufficient legal basis, Court reference 2013 years 9 month 19 The Court of Justice of the European Union vs Martín y Paz Decision of the case and Counsel of the case (Advocate General) opinion. The principle that emerges from the above award is, "Eu trade mark directive" The trademark owner has the right to revoke the license, Therefore, the court should support the right holder to exercise the right, Unless such revocation is deemed an abuse of rights. Therefore, from "Stand a chance of success" Angle analysis of, The fact that the plaintiff owned the trademark and had notified the defendant to withdraw the license to use the trademark, Sufficient to determine that the trademark rights involved may have been infringed. The court also reviewed it "Delays can be risky (periculum in mora) " Relevant requirements of. Ruling emphasis, Strictly speaking, "Grant temporary injunction protection" Not to ensure that the sentence will be carried out, But to ensure the validity of any legal protection granted by the judgment. The court also noted, If there is prima facie evidence in a case, the infringement continues to be tolerated, May cause irreparable damage to the infringed rights. Can see, "Stand a chance of success" with "Prima facie evidence" There is a real connection. The court ruled at the end of the reference: "In the court's opinion, The fact that the plaintiff involved in the trademark has been used for several years without any loss to the plaintiff, It does not preclude the need for a temporary injunction. Given the length of the trial, Continue to use the trademark in question in spite of the opposition of the right holder, May cause irreparable loss to trademark right, In addition, the differences between the trademark owner and the company actually using the trademark are aggravated. "

[comment] It can be seen by the ruling in this case, Temporary injunctions related to intellectual property are no longer an open question in Spain. now, The Spanish trademark court is more sensitive to such issues, Are also more likely to approve such relief measures. The license to use the trademark right is withdrawn due to a dispute between the shareholders of the licensed company, Considering that this is merely changing the status quo of trademark use for a long time, Generally, courts do not grant temporary injunctions based on this alone. but, The facts of the case are clear and undisputed on procedural and substantive legal grounds. Procedural aspect, The plaintiff in this case does "Stand a chance of success" and "Prima facie evidence" Specification requirements of; Substantive legal aspect, There are prior cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the impact of the withdrawal of licences. As you can see from this case, Right now in terms of intellectual property litigation, There is no longer any legitimate speculation, Anything is possible.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property contact us: beijing@elzaburu. es, 3107429780 (QQ) , ELZABURU-BJ (wechat)