jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2015

GUCCI LOSES ITS “GG” UK TRADEMARK

Whenever a trademark registration application is submitted, the applicant has to take the obligation to use the trademark very seriously. Only if it is used does a distinctive sign do its job of singling out one product from all the others on the market. Most legislations the world over require a trademark to be used in a certain form within certain periods; otherwise, third parties may file for expiration due to disuse and strip the registrant of rights in the trademark.

Trademark regulations in Spain also incorporate a system of mandatory use, which differs in practically nothing from the legislation of the United Kingdom. Under UK law, trademarks must be used in British territory within five years of their date of registration. Failure to put a trademark to continuous, systematic use places the owner in a perilous position, as happened in the recent case of the Gucci logo. The ability to provide sufficient proof (such as invoices and catalogues) is indispensable and crucial for the defence; if the evidence is thought to be too scanty, the owner will lose all rights in the sign. This can happen even in the case of so well-known a trademark as the Italian fashion firm Gucci’s “GG” sign.

Gucci’s “GG” logo, a trademark requested for classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 and owned by Guccio Gucci S. PA., was recently revoked after having spent more than 20 years registered in the United Kingdom. The cause: The German fashion company Gerry Weber International filed for revocation due to non-use. The British trademark office considered Gucci’s proof of use insufficient to defend classes 14, 18 and 25 of the international classification and upheld only class 3 for cosmetics and cleaning preparations. In the wake of the fateful decision issued by Judy Pike on 5 November, at least Gucci is allowed to keep using the “GG” trademark to sell its perfumes in class 3. Gucci registered the “GG” logotype in the United Kingdom in four classes, 3, 14, 18 and 25. The application covered products such as perfumes, watches, handbags and t-shirts. However, in June 2012 the Gerry Weber fashion firm asked to have the trademark revoked, claiming that it had not been used from 2003 to 2012.

UK legislation and Spanish legislation both say trademarks can be revoked if they are not used for five years after registration. Gucci’s reply, filed by its in-house attorney Vanni Volpi, was considered vague; the evidence submitted to prove the use of the “GG” logo was insufficient and fuzzy, giving the sales figures for several years but not stipulating the sales in the relevant territory, the United Kingdom. Apart from the lack of sales invoices, the Gucci belts in the catalogues submitted for the defence were made of leather, while class 25 is limited expressly to belts made of fabric, not leather. However, the evidence submitted to the British authorities to prove use of class 3, “non-medicated toilet preparations, cosmetic preparations, perfumes, soaps, dentifrices, preparations for the hair; anti-perspirants, depilatory preparations” was accepted, because it afforded more-evident, general proof of the active presence of Gucci’s “GG” perfumes on the market. So, Gucci was able to keep at least one class and thus did not lose its trademark entirely. The UK Intellectual Property Office’s decision means Gucci cannot protect the “GG” logotype for scarves, shirts, t-shirts, handbags, watches or coats in the United Kingdom.


We have to remind you that trademark rights in Spain are acquired through registration, but the applicant must intend to use the trademark. This proviso is designed to prevent indefinite monopolies over distinctive signs that are not going to be used. Therefore, once registration of your trademark is granted, use your trademark for all the products and/or services covered throughout the territory. This is fundamental. It is also a very good idea to gather evidence (invoices, catalogues, press cuttings) you can file with your defence if anyone ever seeks to have your trademark revoked for lack of use.

martes, 1 de diciembre de 2015

The Three-Dimensional Trademark for Retail Establishments: The Apple Case


Who doesn’t recognize an Apple store at first sight? That was one of the main reasons why in 2010 Apple Inc. started the process of registering its business model as a three-dimensional trademark. Apply took two trademarks it already held as the foundation from which to kick off its 3-D trademark expansion strategy. These trademarks showed a black-and-white design of the store (US, 12.05.2010, No. 85,036,990) and a colour design (US, 12.05.2010, No. 85,035,986).



Both three-dimensional trademarks were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for class 35 of the Nice Classification, which covers “Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto”.

Later, Apple applied to extend its trademark to another 19 countries, including Spain. In 2011 the trademark was granted by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office.

Of all the latter proceedings, the most striking refusal was certainly that of Germany. In 2013 the German trademark office, the DPMA, refused to extend its registration of IR No. 1,060,320 and No. 1,060,321, because it considered that the representation of spaces intended for the sale of an undertaking’s products is merely a representation of an essential aspect of an undertaking’s trade. In the DPMA’s view, although a consumer may indeed interpret the layout of the space as an indication of the value and price category of the products within, the consumer will not perceive the layout as an indication of the origin of the products. In other words, the DPMA felt that the retail space represented was not sufficiently differentiated from the stores of other suppliers of electronic products.

For that reason, the German Patent Court submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which found for Apple Inc. The court said that “the representation of the layout of a retail store, by a design alone, without indicating the size or the proportions, may be registered as a trade mark for services, which, although relating to goods, do not form an integral part of their offer for sale, on condition that that representation is capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant for registration from those of other undertakings”.

Applications No. 1,060,320 and 1,060,321 were refused in China, Great Britain, Sweden and Singapore on absolute grounds, the main obstacle being the descriptive or customary nature of the three-dimensional sign in each registration application.

Despite the drawbacks, this is a clear example of innovation in industrial property in favour of franchises or retail chains in which the point of sale differentiates the product from other products on the market.

Carolina Sánchez Margareto

IP lawyer

miércoles, 25 de noviembre de 2015

"Have a Break, Have a Kit Kat "and Three-D trademarks


Who doesn’t feel like a break? Let’s talk about chocolate bars and three-D trademarks!

On 8 July 2010, Nestlé applied for protection of a three-dimensional trademark for its Kit Kat chocolate bar in the UK. Each bar is engraved with “Kit Kat” in relief with the characteristic oval. However, the trademark application did not include these features; it referred only to the shape of the product for chocolate confections.


When the application was made public, Cadbury filed an objection to keep Nestlé from gaining a monopoly on the three-dimensional trademark in the shape of a chocolate-coated, four-finger wafer biscuit bar. Although the applicant proved that the shape had become distinctive through use, in 2013 the UK examiner decided that the mark was not intrinsically distinctive and rejected the idea that the mark was distinctive, based on article 3 of the Trade Mark Act 1994, paragraph 1, letters b and e, indents i and ii of the Trademark Directive. A request for a preliminary ruling and procedure was lodged with the Court of Justice, and the High Court accordingly suspended the appeal proceedings filed by Nestlé. These were the issues submitted for a preliminary ruling:

1) To prove that a trademark has become distinctive through use, the applicant for registration cannot just demonstrate that the average consumer of products or services belonging to the category in question recognizes the mark and associates it with the applicant’s products; the applicant must show proof that the mark it wishes to register indicates the products’ exclusive origin when compared with any other trademark on the market, without the possibility of confusion.

2) The point is whether the product can be identified with no likelihood of confusion as the Kit Kat wafer marketed by Nestlé solely by its shape, used separately from the wrapper or any other reference to “Kit Kat”, and without including any other mark that is also present. When a shape is made up of three essential characteristics, and one is necessitated by the very nature of the product and the other two are necessary to obtain a technical result.

3) Article 3, paragraph 1 e) ii) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as stating that the presence of grooves gives the product the shape needed to obtain the sought-after technical result; i.e., to allow the consumer to break the biscuit fingers apart easily. The angle of the sides of the product and the angle of the grooves are dictated by a specific chocolate moulding process, i.e., the product manufacturing method.

Should registration be refused? The three causes given in article 3.1.e) of the Trademark Directive are aimed at keeping the essential characteristics of the product that are reflected in its shape in the public domain.

Carolina Sánchez Margareto
IP Lawyer


viernes, 13 de noviembre de 2015

H&M BALMAIN COLLABORATION : BALMAIN NATION

On this occasion let me introduce you to my colleague and friend Lucia Tamayo, she obtained her J.D. in 2012 at Los Andes University in Bogota, Colombia. Ever since she has focused on Intellectual Property Law, having practical experience in Trademark and Patent prosecution and enforcement, her main areas are Biotechnology Patents and IP licensing. Currently she is a future L.L.M candidate at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center, in Germany, a private institution for research on IP addressed to the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Completion.

H&M BALMAIN COLLABORATION: BALMAIN NATION

Does collaboration between high profile designers and retailers can affect the valuation of the trademark?

Well-known designer Olivier Rousteing, social media celebrity and creative designer behind the traditional French maison Balmain has been the target of the latest interaction among low cost firms and famous haute couture firms.

BY HOLA.COM

In this new edition, H&M has manage to obtain an exclusive fashion line specifically designed by Balmain including formal dresses, jewelry and other key pieces that fashionistas around the world would die for.

The collection was launched on November 5th, 2015, after months of expectation, surrounded by mass media advertisement, which included the most popular new models such as Gigi Hadid and of course Ms. Kendall Jenner in front page of almost every fashion magazine. So far, the collection has been a great success, overcoming prior collaboration with designers such as Alexander Wang and Isabel Marant.

Nevertheless, and despite the economical success of “massification’’ of products can this represent a risky move for the traditional French firm and its very prestigious trademark?

When it comes down to Intellectual Property valuation, and particularly when valuating a trademark there are significant aspects to be consider, the number of registrations, the position of the trademark in the consumers mind, and the strength of the mark as a distinctive sign.

In addition it is extremely relevant to consider the product and its market place. Within the fashion industry and in particular within the so called Luxury goods such as the clothes distinguished under the Balmain trademark exclusivity and scarcity play a decisive roll among the consumer and gives the trademark a particular privilege position representing luxury and social status for those who can afford it.

This idea in many cases discourages the luxury firms for getting into licensing agreements or allowing retailers to obtain access to certain products.

For some other firms, the assets to be obtained by launching worldwide cheap collections and the possibility on opening the firm to new and potential consumers are worth the reputational costs.

In an overall, we can say that the collaboration between designers and retailer can be positive in the sense of Democratization of Fashion and for bringing new images to old brands.
This is the perfect example for the concept of “Masstige”[1], which will allows middle class consumers to obtain premium products at affordable prices.

Nevertheless, they are crossing a thin line and may fall into a reputational catastrophe similar to what happened to the Halston III line for JC Penney in 1983.  Collaborations must be taken very seriously, and an economical decision shall also prevail on the licensing or not of the trademark.

Only time will tell if Balmain’s decision is a must!

[1] Michael J. Silverstein, Neil Fiske, Luxury for the Masses, Harvard Business Review. April 2003, available at https://hbr.org/2003/04/luxury-for-the-masses

 Versión Español:

En esta occasion os presento a mi compañera y agran amiga Lucia Tamayo. Ella obtuvo su titulo de abogada en 2012 en la Universidad de Los Andes, en Bogotá, Colombia. Desde este punto, se ha especializado en Propiedad Industrial, y tiene una gran experiencia en presentación y protección de marcas y patentes. Sus áreas de especialización son las patentes biotecnológicas y el licenciamiento de derechos de propiedad intelectual. Actualmente, se encuentra cursando el Master en el Munich Intellectual Property Law Center, en Alemania, el MIPLC. Un instituto privado para el estudio de la Propiedad Intelectual adscrito al Max Planck Institute para la innovación y la competencia. 

La colaboración entre Balmain y H&M: BALMAIN NATION

¿Puede la colaboración entre los diseñadores de alto perfil y las cadenas de tiendas de moda afectar el valor de la marca?

El conocido diseñador Olivier Rousteing, celebridad de las redes sociales y director creativo detrás de la tradicional casa de moda francesa Balmain es el nuevo blanco de la última interacción entre una firma “low cost” y una de las más prestigiosas y tradicionales casas de alta costura.

En esta nueva edición H&M ha conseguido obtener la creación de una línea exclusiva diseñada por Balmain incluyendo vestidos de fiesta, joyería y otras piezas esenciales por las que todas las fashionistas alrededor del mundo morirían.
BY HOLA.COM

El lanzamiento de la colección se llevó a cabo el pasado 5 de noviembre de 2015, luego de meses de expectativa,  y de una fuerte campaña publicitaria, que incluyó la participación de las nuevas top Gigi Hadid y por supuesto Ms. Kendall Jenner en la portada de las mas prestigiosas revistas de moda. Al momento, la colección ha sido un éxito rotundo, sobrepasando en ventas a previas colaboraciones como las del diseñador Alexander Wang e Isabel Marant para las mismas tiendas.

Sin embargo, nos preguntamos, a pesar del éxito económico que representan las ventas en masa de productos,  puede esta decisión representar una movida riesgosa para la tradicional casa francesa y su prestigiosa marca?

Cuando hablamos de valoración de la Propiedad Intelectual, y en particular en la valoración de marca son muchos los aspectos a considerar: la cantidad de registros que se tengan, el posicionamiento de la marca en la mente del consumidor y la fuerza de la misma como signo distintivo.


De igual forma, es muy importante tener en cuenta el producto que distingue la marca y su mercado.

Dentro de la industria de la moda, y en particular dentro de la categoría de bienes de lujo, tales como los distinguidos bajo la marca Balmain los conceptos de exclusividad y escasez son piezas claves dentro de la valoración de la marca, y juegan un rol decisivo en relación con el consumidor puesto que para este, adquirir dicho bien representa lujo y estatus social.

Esta idea o concepto de exclusividad, en muchas ocasiones desmotiva a las grandes firmas a entrar en acuerdos de licencias o a permitir la venta de ciertos productos por parte del distribuidor.

Para otros, las ganancias a ser obtenidas al lanzar una colección relativamente económica alrededor del mundo junto con la posibilidad de abrir la firma a nuevos y potenciales compradores sopesa el costo reputacional.

En general, podemos concluir que las colaboraciones entre los diseñadores y las tiendas de cadena pueden ser positivas en el sentido en que permiten la Democratización de la Moda, y ayudan a dar nuevos aires a marcas antiguas.

La colaboraciones son el perfecto ejemplo del concepto de Masstige, en el cual la clase media puede obtener bienes considerados de lujo o Premium a precios moderados.

No obstante, Balmain esta cruzando una línea muy delgada y puede terminar desencadenando un catástrofe reputacional similar a la que le ocurrió a Halston III line for JC Penney en 1983. Las colaboraciones deben ser tomadas muy seriamente, y la decisión económica debe sin duda prevalecer sobre el si o no del licenciamiento de la marca, por que si, una mala colaboración puede desplomar el valor de la marca.

Solo el tiempo nos dirá si la decisión de Balmain es un Must!






[1] Michael J. Silverstein, Neil Fiske, Luxury for the Masses, Harvard Business Review. April 2003, available at https://hbr.org/2003/04/luxury-for-the-masses