Licensing agreements are commonly used when, for instance, exploiting new areas or countries. Trade mark licences are one such example. A trade mark licence gives the proprietor the opportunity to keep its exclusive rights at the same time as another party uses the trade mark in commercial purposes. When licensing an EUTM to a third party, it is possible to include quality control clauses in the agreement in order for the licensor to control that the licensee uses the trade mark correctly. The possibility to include quality control implies that there is no such obligation within EU trade mark law. Yet, in the US, quality control is not only a possibility but also an obligation in order to keep the trade mark registered. Therefore, it is of interest to examine European trade mark law in relation to quality control in licensing. The American view of quality control is examined for illustrative purposes. Within the EU, the essential function of an EUTM means the ability to identify the origin. In addition, one single undertaking is responsible for the quality that is needed for the trade mark to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted system. Quality is seen as an economic function of the trade mark and therefore it should not be an obligation to include quality control in trade mark licences. The proprietor should bear the responsibility him- or herself when not including quality control. As a contrast, in the US, the consumers must be protected from deception and therefore it is a requirement for the proprietor to control and maintain the quality by including quality control in trade mark licences. If a trade mark licence does not include quality controls, the licence is considered invalid and the trade mark is considered abandoned. Furthermore, a law and economics perspective is included in the thesis and specifically the theory of TCE and the belonging terms or bounded rationality, opportunism, uncertainty and trust. While the EU seems to value trust more when settling licence agreements, the US seems to value opportunism and uncertainty more due to de fact that consumers must be protected from the proprietors. Since quality control within trade mark licensing appears to lock the proprietor into a situation where it is difficult to differentiate and change the direction of the trade mark, it should not be an obligation to include quality controls in trade mark licences. It should be a privilege for the proprietor to decide on whether to use or not and bear the consequences of that choice.

The EU Sustainable Development Goals have long been a resemblance of the urgent call forclimate action and sustainable development. With increasing attention for climate change anda subsequent call for action from states, consumers’ preferences have now also changedtowards opting for sustainable goods and services. The fact that sustainability has becomeincreasingly important to consumers has not gone unnoticed by manufacturers and sellers ofgoods and services. Consequently, trade marks are increasingly used to label goods asenvironmentally sound and to create a sustainable image. With trade marks, certification marksand geographical indications being a valuable source of information, capable ofcommunicating this green reputation, there is also a significant risk of consumer deceptionthrough greenwashing. Nevertheless, trade mark law is used as a means of fosteringsustainable development. Consequently, trade mark law is concerned with sustainability. Thisbegs the question to what degree EU trade mark law is tailored to achieve the EU SustainableDevelopment Goals. To answer this question, a thorough assessment is made of the currentlegal framework of EU trade mark law. Multiple aspects of this system are discussed with afocus on descriptive and deceptive marks, as well as the right to repair, certification marks andgeographical indications. The assessment comprises of a look into the influence on sustainabledevelopment, together with the discerning of shortcomings in the way the respective aspectsof EU trade mark law can add to the achievability of the EU Sustainable Development Goals.After the individual assessments it is argued that there are multiple points of improvement.Further, solutions are introduced to remedy these points of improvement. In specific, aguideline including a non-exhaustive list of terms that should be avoided when registering atrade mark, CJEU recognition of sustainability as a characteristic through which the public canbe deceived and the introduction of sustainable production standards for EU certificationmarks and GIs, possibly through governmentally issued certification marks and GIs, are the keyimprovements of the EU trade mark regulatory system to improve the achievability of the SDGs.It is concluded that EU trade mark law is to a great extent tailored to achieve the EU SustainableDevelopment Goals, but that with the help of the suggested remedies, EU trade mark law canbecome a true catalyst of sustainable development.

This thesis seeks to determine whether or not the inclusion of an explicit parody exception would be beneficial for EU trade mark law. The thesis presents all the variables that need to be taken into account in the decision, putting a special emphasis in the importance of considering the negative effects that a hypothetical inclusion can have on the consumers of the parodied reputed trade marks as this variable has been widely disregarded among scholars. Moreover, in this thesis it is considered that an explicit inclusion of the parody exception in EU trade mark law might be recommended for cases of non-commercial expression and mixed expression but not for cases of merely commercial expression.

This dissertation theses addresses the phenomenon of the unregistered mark for goods and services in accordance with trade mark law of the Czech Republic, while taking into consideration the given scope of EU law and its comparison with the legal protection of applied trade marks in the framework of the "passing-off" doctrine of the legal systems of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. While the subject of trade marks has already been thoroughly established in juristic theory and has also become commonplace in legal practice, the institute of the unregistered trade mark has not yet to be comprehensively examined, and as such it presents significant difficulties in applied practice, as it bears no solid legal foundation, and in the context of the regulations of trade mark law it is always possible to identify specific special entitlements arising from the existence or application of unregistered trade marks, whereas the nature of their verbal formulations and systematic classification presents difficulties in the interpretation and application of such entitlements. The basis for this reasoning is namely the historical evolution of the phenomenon of the unregistered mark in trade mark law in Austrian, respectively in subsequent Cisleithania, and its reception and evolvement within Czechoslovak law as the legal predecessor to the Czech Republic. The goal of the research presented herein is to identify answers to the underlying theoretical questions concerning unregistered marks of fundamental significance to applied practice, and in so far as they concern the nature of the unregistered mark as perceived by trade mark law and its definitional attributes, terms of origin, duration, and expiration of unregistered marks, or more precisely as they concern rights to them, as well as the terms and scope of disposition with unregistered marks, namely in so far as they in turn relate to transfer or conversion and the grant of license or other temporary right of use. Subsequently, the establishment of answers to the aforementioned questions addresses the problem of the absence of an explicit legal principle to the phenomenon of the unregistered mark and the interpretation difficulties offered in the poorly formulated laws and subsequent fluctuations in legal practice. This problem is examined within the legal setting of the Czech Republic as a democratic nation with a market economy, in which holds true the classic legal rudiment of "that which is not prohibited by law is permitted", and in which hold true the fundamental and indefeasible rights of man, a component of which is the right to freely pursue economic activities and possess property within a framework of restrictions favouring the preservation of the rights of others as set forth by the law.

Varumärkesrätten innefattar en bred definition av vilka kännetecken som kan konstituera ett varumärke, vilken inkluderar formen på en vara. När kännetecknet består av en varuform utgör således varan i sig kännetecknet och därmed varumärket. Vid en varumärkesregistrering ska bedömningen av olika kategorier av kännetecken inte skilja sig åt, men för varuformer finns ytterligare hinder vid registrering jämfört med andra typer av kännetecken. Ett sådant registreringshinder avser specifikt funktionella former. Många former tenderar att vara funktionella till viss grad, vilket aktualiserar art. 7.1 e) ii) VmF. Artikeln föreskriver ett absolut registreringshinder mot att registerna former som endast består av ”en varas form eller annan egenskap hos varan som krävs för att uppnå ett tekniskt resultat”. Om en varuform hindras registrering enligt artikeln, är uteslutningen från registrering permanent. Det innebär att registreringshindret inte kan övervinnas även om formen förvärvar särskiljningsförmåga på marknaden. EUD har uttalat att det inte vore skäligt att neka registrering av varuformer endast på grund av att de innehar några funktionella element. För att ett kännetecken ska falla inom ramen för artikeln behöver således en forms alla väsentliga särdrag falla inom ramen för bestämmelsen. Detta medför viss problematik när det kommer till hybridkännetecken vilka innehar vissa element som är funktionella, men även andra element som är icke-funktionella. Enligt gällande rätt kan hybridkännetecken registreras som varumärken om de innehar icke-funktionella särdrag som anses vara väsentliga. Hela formen av ett hybridkännetecken kan således registreras som ett varumärke under förutsättning att endast några av de väsentliga särdragen krävs för att uppnå den tekniska funktionen. Genom en undersökning av rättspraxis konstateras att EUD utför en fri och långtgående undersökning vid bedömning av vad som utgör en forms väsentliga särdrag och dessa särdrags eventuella funktion. EUD är inte bunden till vad som anges i varumärkesansökan, utan undersöker även den faktiska varan på marknaden för vilket kännetecknet är ämnat att användas. EUD verkar generellt vara restriktiv med att låta tredimensionella former registreras, inte minst när de innehåller funktionella element. Möjligen beror den negativa inställningen till att registrera hybridkännetecken på bristen av effektiva lösningar att tydligt undanta de funktionella elementen från registrering. Vid en registrering av hybridkännetecken uppstår även intressanta aspekter ur intrångssynpunkt eftersom formen är registrerad som en helhet, även om vissa väsentliga särdrag inte är ämnade att omfattas av ensamrätten. Vid analoga tillämpningar av rättspraxis framstår det som att dessa element, utan att det explicit framgår av exempelvis en disclaimer, ska vara undantagna från den ensamrätt som erhålls varumärkesinnehavaren. / The trade mark law includes a very broad definition of signs that can constitute a trade mark, which includes the shape of a product. When a sign consists of the shape of a product, the product itself becomes the sign and thus the trade mark. In the case of a trade mark registration, the assessment should not differ between different categories of signs. However, when it comes to registration for signs consisting of the shape of a product, there are further obstacles to overcome before protection can be granted compared to other types of signs. Many shapes tend to be functional to some extent, which brings relevance to the absolute ground for refusal found in art. 7.1 e) ii) EUTMR. The article prohibits registration of signs which consist exclusively of “the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result”. If the registration of a sign is prohibited by the article, the exclusion from registration is permanent. This means that the ground for refusal cannot be overcome even if the sign acquires distinctiveness on the market. The CJEU has stated that it would not be reasonable to deny a shape registration only on the sole ground that it has some functional elements. Therefore, in order for a sign to fall within the scope of the article, all the essential characteristics of a shape must fall within the scope of the provision. This causes certain difficulties when it comes to hybrid signs, which possess some elements that are functional, but also other elements that are non-functional. Under current law, hybrid signs can be registered as trade marks if the non-functional elements are considered as essential. The entire form of a hybrid sign can thus be registered as a trade mark only if some, but not all, essential characteristics are required to achieve the technical function. By examining case law, it can be stated that the CJEU carry out a free and extensive examination when assessing what constitutes the essential characteristics of a shape and the possible function of these elements. The CJEU is not bound to the trade mark application but also examines the actual goods for which the sign is intended to be used. The CJEU generally seems to be restrictive in allowing registration for three-dimensional shapes, especially in regard to those incorporating functional elements. This might be the case since there is no good way to clearly exclude the functional elements from the registration. However, when registering a hybrid sign, interesting aspects also arise from the infringement point of view since the shape is registered as a whole but contains certain essential features, which are not intended to be covered by the exclusive right granted. In analogous applications of case law, it appears that these elements, without being explicitly stated in e.g. a disclaimer, must be excluded from the exclusive right granted to the proprietor.

SANTRAUKA Šiame darbe analizuojama Europos Teisingumo Teismo ir Lietuvos teismų praktika, siekiant identifikuoti prekių ženklų tapatumo ir panašumo nustatymui reikšmingus kriterijus, šių kriterijų taikymo sąlygas bei įtaką vertinant bendrą prekių ženklų įspūdį, taip pat atkreipiamas dėmesys į teorinius ir praktinius probleminius prekių ženklų tapatumo ir panašumo nustatymo klausimus ir siūlomi jų sprendimai. Pirmojoje dalyje labai koncentruotai nurodomas su prekių ženklų tapatumu ir panašumu susijęs teisinis reglamentavimas. Antrojoje dalyje atskleidžiama prekių ženklų tapatumo sąvoka bei prekių ženklų tapatumo vertinimas buvusio Pirmosios Instancijos Teismo, dabartinio Bendrojo Teismo ir ETT praktikoje, taip pat, siekiant tapatumo klausimą išnagrinėti visapusiškai, pasiremiant pavyzdžiais ir iš Vidaus rinkos harmonizavimo tarnybos praktikos. Trečioji darbo dalis skirta aptarti prekių ženklų panašumą bei išnagrinėti jam nustatyti reikšmingus kriterijus. Šioje dalyje Bendrijos ir Lietuvos teismų sprendimų analizė atlikta pagal bendriausius prekių ženklų panašumo nustatymo kriterijus: skiriamuosius ir dominuojančius elementus, vaizdinį, fonetinį bei konceptualų lyginimą. Darbo pabaigoje atskirai aptariama netradicinių prekių ženklų panašumo nustatymo specifika. / SUMMARY Establishment of Identity and Similarity of Trade Marks in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice and Lithuanian Courts This master thesis is dedicated to analyze case law of the European Court of Justice and Lithuanian courts, with the aim to identify criteria significant for establishment of identity and similarity of trade marks, conditions for application of those criteria as well as influence upon evaluation of the general impression created by trade marks. In addition, attention is drawn to theoretical and practical problem issues in establishment of identity and similarity of trade marks and suggestions on their solution are made. In the first part, a list of condensed references is made to laws pertinent to the identity and similarity of trade marks. The second part reveals the concept of identity of trade marks and judgment of identity of trade marks in the case law of the former Court of First Instance, currently the General Court, and the European Court of Justice, supplemented by additional illustrations from the practice of the OHIM, in attempt of painting the full picture of the identity issue. The third part of the thesis focuses on the discussion of the similarity of trade marks and analysis of criteria for establishment of similarity of trade marks. Herein the analysis of case law of the European Court of Justice and Lithuanian courts has been carried out based on general criteria of similarity of trade marks: distinguishing and dominating... [to full text]