För att kunna registrera ett EU-varumärke krävs att det inte föreligger några absoluta eller relativa registreringshinder. Ett av de absoluta registreringshindren, art. 7.1 e) iii) VMF, stadgar ett förbud om att registrera kännetecken som endast består av ”[...] en varas form eller en annan egenskap som ger varan ett betydande värde”. Bestämmelsen har varit föremål för omfattande diskussion eftersom regeln medför väsentliga tolkningssvårigheter. I uppsatsen utreds hur omfattningen av art. 7.1 e) iii) VMF ska tolkas. Ett mål som belyser svårigheterna med nyss nämnda bestämmelse är Svenskt Tenn-målet, där frågan är om MANHATTAN ska anses omfattas av art. 7.1 e) iii) ÄVMF eftersom det är ett tvådimensionellt varumärke som är en tvådimensionell återgivning av en tvådimensionell vara. Vidare undersöks även det överlappande skydd som kan uppstå mellan upphovsrätt och varumärkesrätt, som art. 7.1 e) iii) VMF syftar att förhindra. Av uppsatsen framgår att begreppen i art. 7.1 e) iii) VMF måste tolkas var för sig. Utformningen av bestämmelsen medför således att ”en varas form” ska tolkas som fristående från en ”annan egenskap”, vilket gör att endast tredimensionella varor ska omfattas av begreppet ”form”. Lokutionen ”annan egenskap” syftar istället till att fånga upp sådana kännetecken som inte omfattas av form. Det som blir avgörande i bestämmelsen är emellertid begreppet ”betydande värde”, vilket kan utgöra olika faktorer såsom pris, renommé och omsättningskretsens uppfattning av varan. Vid en sammanvägd bedömning bör MANHATTAN omfattas av art. 7.1 e) iii) VMF mot bakgrund av bestämmelsens ordalydelse och syfte. I uppsatsen framgår även att det överlappande skyddet mellan upphovsrätt och varumärkesrätt inte torde vara önskvärt. Upphovsrätt och varumärkesrätt har skilda skyddsintressen och inne- håller olika bestämmelser, varför en överlappning medför ett för vittomfattande skydd som inte kan ha varit önskvärt av lagstiftaren. Visserligen borde en överlappning vara önskvärd från rättsinnehavarens perspektiv. Den sammanvägda bedömningen mellan lagstiftarens, rätts- innehavarens och allmänintressets intressen medför dock att överlappningen inte kan anses vara önskvärd. / In order to be able to register an EU trade mark, there must be no absolute or relative grounds for refusal. One of the absolute grounds for refusal, art. 7.1 e) iii) of the European union trade mark regulation, prohibits registration of signs which consist exclusively of “[...] the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods”. The provision has been subject of extensive discussion because the rule brings significant interpretation difficulties. Therefore, the essay investigates how the scope of art. 7.1 e) iii) of the European union trade mark regulation shall be interpreted. A case that highlights the difficulties with the aforemen- tioned provision is Svenskt Tenn-målet. The question in this case is whether MANHATTAN should be covered by art. 7.1 e) iii) of the Community trade mark regulation since it is a two-dimensional trademark which is a reproduction of a two-dimensional product. Furthermore, the overlapping protection that may arise between copyright and trademark law, as art. 7.1 e) iii) of the European union trade mark regulation aims to prevent, is also being investigated. It appears from the essay that the concepts in art. 7.1 e) iii) of the European union trade mark regulation must be interpreted separately. The formulation of the regulation also means that “the shape” must be interpreted as being separate from “another characteristic”, which means that only three-dimensional goods shall be covered by the term “form”. Instead, the “another characteristic” aims to capture such signs that are not covered by “form”. However, what is decisive in the regulation is the term “substantial value”, which may include different factors, such as price, reputation and the consumer’s perception of the product. The judgement is that MANHATTAN should be covered by art. 7.1 e) iii) of the European union trade mark regulation in the light of the wording and purpose of the regulation. The essay also states that the overlapping protection between copyright and trademark law is not desirable. The copyright and trademark law have differing protection interests and contains various provisions. Therefore, an overlapping protection entails a too extensive protection, which may not have been desirable by the legislator. Certainly, an overlap is to be desirable from the right holder’s perspective. However, the judgement between the legislator, the right holder’s and the public interest’s perspective means that the overlap cannot be consid- ered desirable.

All three shape marks-exclusions in EUTMR art. 7 e) can be avoided by adding an essential element to a shape, which is not attributable to the conditions set out in the exclusions, such as a distinctive nonfunctional element. A valid shape mark registration gives the rights holder the right to prevent other trade mark registrations of identical or similar signs for identical or similar goods if there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, as well as to initiate infringement proceedings against anyone who uses such a sign in their line of business. Under the test for likelihood of confusion, it is assessed to what extent the average consumer remembers a distinctive sign, which is not limited to its distinctive elements. Since the average consumer is capable to remember other elements than distinctive elements, only negligible elements are excluded from the average consumer’s overall perception of the sign. Non-distinctive elements are not necessarily deemed negligible, depending on their size and/or position within the mark. So, while functional elements are usually perceived as merely functional or ornamental, and thus non-distinctive, they may still be deemed non-negligible due to their size and/or position within the mark. Case law shows that a likelihood of confusion may therefore follow as a result of two marks only sharing an element deemed non-distinctive on its own. The CJEU has also expressed that the public interest behind the test for likelihood of confusion is to secure the rights holder’s interests and not to secure the competitors’ need for a free access to signs and elements. The need to keep certain signs and elements free is therefore not considered a relevant factor in the test for likelihood of confusion. So, while it may seem logical that a sign, which is registrable only due to incorporating a distinctive element as a part of a complex mark, would have a scope of protection limited only to that distinctive element, case law shows that such a conclusion is not necessarily true. In this thesis it is argued that if the average consumer does not even perceive that a functional element constitutes a part of a complex decorated shape mark, consisting of both e.g. a functional naked shape and the added distinctive element, the functional element is negligible and will not be remembered by the average consumer. But if the average consumer is able to perceive a functional naked shape or element as its own indication of origin, or at least as an element of such a complex mark, its size and position alone in the complex mark could be enough to be able to establish a similarity of signs with another resembling shape, even if the latter lacks the inclusion of the same distinctive element. If the other shape does not deviate enough from the visual appearance of the functional naked shape or element in the registered complex mark, the similarity of the signs could be enough to cause a likelihood of confusion.