<p>In the search for companies to distinguish themselves from the mass, so called non-traditional trade marks have become increasingly popular, and in particular colour marks. It is now clear that abstract colour marks can be registered as trade marks, and the number of registered colour marks has increased considerably in recent years. However, it remains a lot more uncertain, mainly due to lack of case law, what the extent of colour marks’ scope of protection is. Are colours actually worth protecting? The purpose of this thesis is to examine the scope of protection of registered abstract colour marks from an EU perspective. Through this examination it will also be established whether colours are worth protecting.</p><p>The essential function of trade marks is to indicate the origin of products. Signs that are capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing goods and services from one undertaking from those of other undertakings can be registered as trade marks. Colours can fulfil these criteria in certain circumstances, however, colours can practically never have distinctive character per se. Instead, they must have acquired distinctive character through use. Since it is quite difficult to register colour marks, a colour mark proprietor should be prepared to have the validity of his trade mark challenged if he issues proceedings for infringement.</p><p>There are a few national cases from EU Member States that have concerned infringement of colour marks, and in all of these the plaintiff was successful in claiming infringement. Through the decisions in these cases, general legal principles and statements made in literature, the scope of protection of colour marks has been examined. Infringement of a colour mark occurs in three different situations: where there is likelihood of confusion, where there is double identity and where there is dilution of a trade mark with a reputation.</p><p>Some of the most important findings are that confusingly similar colours include adjacent shades, but in order to prove likelihood of confusion, the infringing colour must probably be perceived by the public as an indication of origin and other signs that appear together with the colour must probably be taken into account, which limits the scope of protection to some extent. However, since colour marks must almost always have acquired distinctive character through use, consumers are used to perceiving that colour as a trade mark in relation to those types of goods/services, and are therefore more likely to do so also when the colour is used by the third party. Furthermore, there have to be an individual assessment in each case in order to determine whether surrounding signs exclude a likelihood of confusion, where all factors should be considered, including the distinctiveness of the colour mark and how clear and prominent the other signs are.</p><p>In situations of double identity, the infringing sign does not have to be used as a trade mark, which is advantageous for colour mark owners. Furthermore, identical colours can possibly include other shades if they are so similar that the difference is barely perceptible in a direct comparison.</p><p>Colour marks can often qualify as trade marks with a reputation, since the assessment of whether trade marks have a reputation is similar to the assessment of whether trade marks have acquired distinctive character through use. Trade marks with a reputation has an extended protection meaning that if a third party uses a sign that is identical or similar to a trade mark with a reputation, and that use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark, then that use constitutes infringement. This applies both in relation to identical, similar and dissimilar products, however, it will probably only apply in relation to identical or similar products when it comes to colour marks, due to the extensive use of colours in the market. The extended protection could be relevant in particular in situations where likelihood of confusion cannot be proven, because the public does not perceive the infringing sign as a trade mark or because of surrounding prominent signs.</p><p>This examination shows that the scope of protection of colour marks is not great, it has some weaknesses. However, it is definitely not worthless either, which clearly shows in the fact that the plaintiffs were successful in claiming infringement in all of the infringement cases. By registering a colour as a trade mark, a company can to some extent stop others from using the same or similar colour, and it will also most likely have a discouraging effect. However, some carefulness should still be applied in relation to colour marks, since this is still a very new phenomenon and additional case law can take another direction. But considering how the situation looks today, colours are worth protecting as trade marks.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:hj-11212 |
| Date | January 2009 |
| Creators | Nilsson, Jennie |
| Publisher | Jönköping University, JIBS, Commercial Law |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds