Kaip jau nurodyta pavadinime, magistro darbe pateikiama viešosios tvarkos ir moralės, kaip pagrindo atsisakyti registruoti Bendrijos prekių ženklą, analizė. Darbas susideda iš dviejų dalių, kurių pirmojoje pateikiama viešosios tvarkos ir moralės sampratų bei teorijų įvairovė, jų tarpusavio ryšys ir santykis su teisės normomis, įvertinamas šio pagrindo santykis su įsitikinimu išraiškos laisve. Antrojoje darbo dalyje pagrindinis dėmesys kreipiamas į tarptautinių, Europos Sąjungos ir nacionalinių institucijų praktiką, nagrinėjant bylas, susijusias su atsisakymu registruoti žymenį, prieštaraujantį viešajai tvarkai ir moralei. Paskutinėje darbo dalyje autorė apibendrina pagrindines prekių ženklų vertinimo gaires ir kriterijus. Tyrimo tikslas yra atskleisti viešosios tvarkos ir moralės sampratų įvairovę ir jų turinio priklausomybę nuo daugelio veiksnių, įvertinti viešosios tvarkos ir moralės apsaugos ir įsitikinimų išraiškos laisvės santykį ir nubrėžti prekių ženklų vertinimo gaires ir kriterijus. Tokiu būdu, įvykdžius šiuos tikslus, darbe pateikiami teoriniai argumentai, paremti teismų praktikos ir bylų analize. Pabaigoje autorė daro išvadą, kad viešosios tvarkos ir moralės apibrėžimas yra reliatyvus ir priklauso nuo daugelio veiksnių, tokių kaip valstybinė ir visuomeninė santvarka, teisės tradicija, papročiai, religija, civilizacijos ir kultūros lygis, šalyje vykstantys įvykiai, visuomenės požiūris, socialinė ir dvasinė aplinka, ir apibendrinamos prekių ženklų vertinimo gairės ir... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / As already indicated by the title, this master thesis provides the analysis of public order and morality as grounds of refusal to register a Community trade mark. The thesis consists of two parts, the first of which presents various concepts and theories concerning the terms “public order” and “morality”, cohesion between these two terms, and the relationship between law and morals, as well as evaluates the relationship between the protection of public order and morality and the freedom of expression. The second section focuses on the practise of international, European Union and national authorities examining cases regarding refusal to register a mark contrary to public order and morality. Furthermore, in the final part of the paper the author reveals the main guidelines and criteria for trade mark examination. The purpose of this study is to reveal the diversity of concepts of public order and morality and the dependence of their content on many factors, as well as to evaluate the relationship between the protection of public order and morality and the freedom of expression, and to determine the main guidelines and criteria for trademark examination. Thus, by achieving these goals, the thesis provides theoretical arguments backed up by case law and case study. Finally, it is concluded that the definition of public order and morality is relative and depends on many factors, such as political system and social order, legal tradition, customs, religion, civilization and... [to full text]

Revocation and Invalidity of European Trade Mark Revocation and invalidity of European trade mark, more precisely termed as Community trade mark (hereinafter as "CTM"), is a specific field of trade mark law of the European Union. It is Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark which forms a legal basis in this regard. The practice of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market and especially the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union play very significant role in this area. The practice of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is also relevant for the revocation and invalidity of CTM as this Directive provides for the revocation and invalidity of national trade marks in similar manner. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the nature of revocation and invalidity of CTM and individual grounds for revocation and invalidity as well as selected related issues, e.g. of procedural nature. This thesis is divided into four chapters. First chapter briefly introduces the institute of CTM and trade...

Pastaruoju metu galima pastebėti tendencingą prekių ženklo reikšmės didėjimą tiek vietinėje, tiek regioninėje, tiek ir tarptautinėje prekyboje, todėl kiekvienas prekių ženklo savininkas yra skatinamas skirti vis didesnį dėmesį tinkamam savo prekių ženklo valdymui bei apsaugai. Bendrijos prekių ženklo apsaugos sistema suteikia registruotam prekių ženklui apsaugą visoje Europos Sąjungos teritorijoje. Žymeniui, galinčiam tapti prekių ženklu ir naudotis Bendrijos prekių ženklo sistemos garantuojama apsauga, yra keliami gana aukšti grafinės išraiškos ir skiriamojo pobūdžio reikalavimai. Šie reikalavimai yra tenkinamai, jei žymens grafinė išraiška yra aiški, apibrėžta, išbaigta, lengvai prieinama, suprantama, ilgalaikė ir objektyvi, o žymens skiriamasis pobūdis leidžia aiškiai identifikuoti prekių ar paslaugų kilmę. / Recently it is possible to notice the tendentious increase of trade mark’s importance in local, regional and international market, therefore every trade mark proprietor shall be motivated to pay more and more attention to proper management and protection of their trade mark. Community Trade Mark’s Protection System provides the protection for the registered trade mark within the entirely territory of the European Union. Sign, capable of being a trade mark and using the guaranteed protection of the Community Trade Mark Protection System, shall follow the high requirements of graphical representation and distinctiveness. These requirements are fulfilled provided that the graphical representation is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible and objective, where the distinctiveness of the sign allows clearly identify the origin of goods and services. Community Trade Mark proprietors may be every natural or legal person, including authorities established under public law. The rights of Community Trade Mark proprietor may be divided into the following main groups: (1) exclusive rights; and (2) ownership rights to the trade mark. The exclusive rights of the proprietor allows to prohibit all third parties without the permission of the proprietor from using in the course of trade the sign, which is identical or similar to the Community Trade Mark and which may confuse a consumer. When providing the proprietor of the trade mark with the respective rights, it is... [to full text]

This thesis analyzes the contemporary case law of European courts regarding Community trade mark. The thesis is composed of five chapters. First chapter characterizes Community trade mark as a legal instrument of the law of the European Union. Second chapter analyzes relevant sources of law. Third chapter deals with institutions that are crucial mainly for the registration and protection of Community trade marks. Then the fourth chapter describes the registration process before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. First part of this chapter focuses on the formalities of an application of the Community trade mark filed at the Office. Second part is concerned with the right of priority. Third part looks at absolute grounds for refusal of an application. Fourth part refers to relative grounds for refusal. Finally, the fifth part describes the grounds for revocation of the rights of the Community trade mark. At last the fifth chapter examines the contemporary legal background of the system of protecting the rights of proprietors of Community trade marks. The results of this thesis shows that the current legislation and the case law of European courts contribute to the functioning of the common market and mainly to free movement of goods by reasonable determination of limits for...

<p>Article 15(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation states that the Community Trade Mark holder has to put the mark into genuine use in the Community within five years from registration. Even though the regulation does not deal with the extent of use necessary, the Joint Statements uphold that genuine use within one country is enough. However, recent case law from national offices have ruled in the opposite direction, resulting in legal uncertainty concerning how much use that is needed. The courts claimed that use within merely one Member State is not use in a substantial part of the Community and therefore not genuine.This paper shows that it is not satisfactory to define genuine use in the Community by way of analogy to the term substantial part of the territory. The latter derives from the test of reputation concerning a different case entirely. Instead, most indicators point towards a market-oriented approach where national frontiers do not matter. Focus should be on the extent of use being made compared to the market concerned in the entire EU. A case-by-case assessment is required, where all relevant circumstances are taken into consideration.</p>

Article 15(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation states that the Community Trade Mark holder has to put the mark into genuine use in the Community within five years from registration. Even though the regulation does not deal with the extent of use necessary, the Joint Statements uphold that genuine use within one country is enough. However, recent case law from national offices have ruled in the opposite direction, resulting in legal uncertainty concerning how much use that is needed. The courts claimed that use within merely one Member State is not use in a substantial part of the Community and therefore not genuine.This paper shows that it is not satisfactory to define genuine use in the Community by way of analogy to the term substantial part of the territory. The latter derives from the test of reputation concerning a different case entirely. Instead, most indicators point towards a market-oriented approach where national frontiers do not matter. Focus should be on the extent of use being made compared to the market concerned in the entire EU. A case-by-case assessment is required, where all relevant circumstances are taken into consideration.

The Master thesis consistently analyses peculiarities of Community trade mark regulation in comparison with national trade mark legal systems in member states (primarily Lithuania, Germany and United Kingdom) and Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. The author takes notice of although requirements for the marks which have to be registered as Community trade marks are similar to those in member states, however there are several differences in registration proceedings. In the third part of the work, consequences upon infringement of Community trade mark proprietor rights are analyzed. Enforcement of rights problem is one of the least disclosed issue in the regulation No.40/94 and one of the most complicated part of Community trade mark system. In accordance with laws operating in the Community and in member states, case law and jurisprudence, the author looks for peculiarities estimating jurisdiction and applicable law, as well peculiarities applying remedies of rights enforcement, and proposes various approaches concerning solutions to problematic issues.

The Community Trade Mark in Comparison with the National Trade Mark - Focused on the Unitary Character of the Community Trade Mark and the Absolute Grounds of Refusal Abstract The Community Trade Mark system has existed since 1994 when the Community Trade Mark Regulation No. 40/94/EC was adopted. Even though the European system is younger than the national trade mark systems, one cannot say that it is a less successful system - particularly according to the number of registered Community Trademarks. The regulation of trademarks is very complex and for this reason I have decided to focus only on one part of the regulation, namely the unitary character, which represents a special characteristic of a Community Trade Mark - and further on the absolute grounds of refusal and their comparison in European and Czech trade mark law. The two systems for the registration of trademarks show considerable resemblance; however, one shall find differences, e.g. an integration of bad faith as one of the absolute grounds of refusal appearing only in the national system. The purpose of my thesis is to compare the two systems of trademarks - the Community level and the National level, and to provide readers with clear guidance regarding the general rules applicable within the registration. I will do this through an analysis...

The aim of this work is to provide fundamental information about trademarks and their legal regulation. This topic, very interesting nowadays, also have a potention of great importance in a close future. Following this, trademarks are very dynamically developing institute.

1 Abstract Trademarks and their territorial limits The purpose of my thesis is to analyze the ways that are used for overcoming territorial limits of trademarks, to point out the pros and cons of these methods. Likewise, I'd like to point out the fact that the various systems of trademarks - national and international systems and system of Community trade mark are interconnected and they complete each other. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the quality of national legislation, to match the European Union standards and international standards, as well. I chose this topic, because the issue of trademarks is in my opinion very interesting, I like the fact that they can connect designers and businessmen, I am fascinated by their overlap into the art sphere, too. The topic of marks is very broad and quite specific, for understandable reasons it cannot be given so much time within the subjects taught at the Faculty. Also this was one of the reasons I chose this topic. My work is divided into six major thematic units, together there are 25 chapters, some of them are further divided into subchapters and sections. In the first part, which corresponds to the first and the second chapter, I try to out the trademarks as an institution in a wider context of intellectual property rights and industrial property...