The applicability of the graphical representation requirement on the registration of non-traditional trademarks: Comparative Analysis of a possible update in the Andean Community Regulation in the light of the European and Chinese experiences
The applicability of the graphical representation requirement on the registration of non-traditional trademarks: Comparative Analysis of a possible update in the Andean Community Regulation in the light of the European and Chinese experiences
Barra lateral del artículo
PDF (English)
FLIP
HTML (English)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Este artículo tiene como objetivo explorar la cuestión de si la armonización internacional de la abolición del requisito de representación gráfica es necesaria para facilitar el registro de nuevos tipos de marcas que pueden no ser fácilmente representables gráficamente. Al examinar los sistemas de marcas de la Unión Europea, la Comunidad Andina y China, esta investigación analiza las ventajas y desventajas asociadas con la eliminación del requisito de representación gráfica y su impacto en el registro de marcas no tradicionales.
A través de un estudio comparativo, esta investigación proporciona información sobre los beneficios y desafíos que surgen de la abolición del requisito de representación gráfica, destacando la importancia de adaptarse a las prácticas de marcas en evolución y de asegurar una protección efectiva para las formas innovadoras de marcas.
Palabras clave:
análisis comparativo,
Reglamento de Marcas Europeas,
requisito de representación gráfica,
marcas no tradicionales,
actualización normativa,
Tratado de Singapur,
ADPIC (Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio)
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Referencias (VER)
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995).
Andean Decision No. 486 Establishing the Common Industrial Property Regime (adopted 14 September 2000, entered into force 1 December 2000).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626 of 5 March 2018 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Trademark, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431 (EUTMIR).
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20 March 1883, entered into force 7 July 1884).
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trademark [2017] OJ L154/1 (entered into force 6 July 2017).
Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Promulgated by Decree No. 358 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on August 3, 2002, revised and promulgated by Decree No. 651 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on April 29, 2014, and effective as of May 1, 2014).
Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (adopted 27 March 2006, entered into force 16 March 2009).
Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to Decision of August 30, 2013, of the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress on Amendments to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China).
Andean Community and IP Key Latin America by EUIPO. ‘Compendium of Andean Resolutions on Trademarks’. 2021.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA). ‘Index of Clarified Act Criteria’. 2023.
European Union Intellectual Property Network. ‘Common Communication. New Types of Marks: Examination of Formal Requirements And Grounds For Refusal’. 2021.
European Union Intellectual Property Office. ‘Guidelines for examination of European Union Trademarks’. 2023.
Superintendence of Industry and Commerce of the Republic of Colombia. Distinctive Signs Office. ‘Guidelines for Trademark Registration’. 2022.
World Intellectual Property Office. Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs And Geographical Indications. ‘Methods of Representation and Description of New Types of Marks’. Seventeenth Session, 2007.
Christian Louboutin v. National Intellectual Property Administration. Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (Administrative Division), Decision of 24 December 2019.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA) Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 36-IP-99.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA). Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 38-IP-2008.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA). Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 70-IP-2013.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA). Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 12-IP-2014.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA). Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 242-IP-2015.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA). Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 421-IP-2019.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA) Preliminary Interpretation for Process n.° 120-IP-2021.
Court of Justice of the Andean Community (TJCA), Preliminary Interpretation for Process 344-IP-2022.
European Union Intellectual Property Office. Appeal R 120/2001-2 of August 4, 2003. Trademark Application n.° 001452853.
European Union Intellectual Property Office. Appeal R 2588/2014-2 of May 27, 2015. Trademark Application n.° 012112462.
Court of Justice of the European Union. Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent und Markenamt. (2002) Case C-273/00.
Court of Justice of the European Union. Levola Hengelo BV v. Smilde Foods BV. (2018) Case C-310/17.
Court of Justice of the European Union-Eden SARL v. OHIM (2005) Case T-305/04.
Superintendence of Industry and Commerce of the Republic of Colombia. Distinctive Signs Office. Resolution n.° 11956 of April 30, 2007. Trademark Application No. 05047635.
Superintendence of Industry and Commerce. Distinctive Signs Office. Resolution No. 90504 of December 22, 2007. Trademark Application n.° 15045738.
Superintendence of Industry and Commerce of the Republic of Colombia. Distinctive Signs Office. Resolution n.° 90504 of December 22, 2007. Trademark Application n.° SD2017/0012803.
Croze, D. ‘Making a Large Universe Visually Perceptible: The Development of Non-Traditional Trademarks in WIPO Treaties’, in Irene Calboli, and Martin Senftleben (eds), The Protection of Non-Traditional Trademarks: Critical Perspectives (Oxford, 2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 21 Feb. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826576.003.0002.
Guerrero Gaitán, M. ‘The New Trademark Law. Perspective in Colombia, the United States and the European Union’ (Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2016).
Haochen, S. ‘Protecting Non-Traditional Trademarks in China: New Opportunities and Challenges’, in Irene Calboli, and Martin Senftleben (eds), The Protection of Non-Traditional Trademarks: Critical Perspectives (Oxford, 2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 21 Feb. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826576.003.0010.
Tritton, G. and Davis, R. ‘Intellectual Property in Europe’ (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018).
Adekola, T. ‘Abolition of Graphical Representation in EU Trademark Directive: Should Countries with Similar Provisions Follow EU’s Footsteps?’ (2020). Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339952926_Abolition_of_Graphical_Representation_in_EU_Trademark_Directive_Should_Countries_with_Similar_Provisions_Follow_EU%27s_Footsteps.
Bolte, J. ‘The Removal of the Requirement for Graphical Representation of EUTrademarks The Impact of the Amending Trademark Regulation’ (2016) Örebro Universitet. http://oru.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1072679/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Cure Villa, V. ‘Graphic representation of olfactory marks in Colombia in the light of the Decision 486 of 2000 of the Andean Community Commission’ (2020) Universidad de los Andes. Anuario de Derecho Privado. https://anuarioderechoprivado.uniandes.edu.co/images/pdfs/anuario2/3Curetesis.pdf.
Danciu, V. ‘The scent of a trademark: removal of graphic representability requirement’. (2019) Dennemeyer, The IP Group. https://www.dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/the-scent-of-a-trademark-removal-of-graphic-representability-requirement/.
Demcak, I. ‘Guide to non-traditional trademarks in the EU and the US: definitions, laws, and examples’. (2023) Trama TM. https://www.tramatm.com/blog/category/legal/guide-to-non-traditional-trademarks-in-the-eu-andthe-us-definitions-laws.
Escobedo, C. ‘Peru receives first two post-treaty applications to register motion marks’ (2019) World Trademark Review. https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/peru-receives-first-two-post-treaty-applications-register-motion-marks.
García Enríquez, J.R. ‘The necessity of regulating non-traditional trademarks in Peru’ (2021) Universidad Continental. https://repositorio.continental.edu.pe/bitstream/20.500.12394/10492/2/IV_FDE_312_TE_Garcia_Enriquez_2021.pdf.
Guerrero Gaitán, M. ‘Interpretation of the Andean Court of Justice imposes the presentation of physical samples for the registration of tactile trademarks’ (2015) Universidad Externado de Colombia. https://propintel.uexternado.edu.co/en/interpretacion-del-tribunal-andino-de-justicia-impone-la-presentacionde-muestras-fisicas-para-el-registro-de-marcas-tactiles/.
GRUR International. ‘Protection of Louboutin’s Red Sole Trademark’ (2020) Volume 69, Issue 10. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa127.
Höpperger, M. ‘Non-Traditional Marks – Singapore Treaty Enters into Force’ (2009) WIPO Magazine. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2009/01/article_0002.html.
Huld, A. ‘Amendments to China Trademark Law: Improving IP Use and Protection’ (2019) China Briefing. Dezan Shira & Associates. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/amendments-to-china-trademark-lawimproving-ip-use-and-protection/.
Jianbao, S. ‘Registration Formal Requirements for Sound Trademarks in China, US, and EU’ (2019) China Intellectual Property Magazine. http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/en/journal-show.asp?id=1686.
Lockhart, B. and Porter, B. ‘The Dating Game: Tracking the Hobble-Skirt Coca-Cola Bottle’. (2010) Bottles and Extras. https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf.
Meng, S. ‘The Status Quo of the Sound Trademarks in China’. (2021) Linda Liu & Partners. https://www.lindapatent.com/en/info/insights_trademark/2022/0215/1459.html.
Pereira Cabral, J. ‘The elimination of the “graphical representation” requirement and its effect on non-traditional EU trademarks’. (2020) Inventa. https://inventa.com/en/news/article/564/the-elimination-of-the-graphical-representationrequirement-and-its-effect-on-non-traditional-eu-trademarks.
Ribeiro da Cunha, I. and Randakevicˇiu˜te˙-Alpman, J. ‘New types of marks available after the European Union Trademark Reform: An Analysis in the light of the U.S. Trademark law’ (2019) 10(3) JIPITEC. https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-3-2019/5032/#N10876.
Scrimenti, B.J. ‘Animated “Motion Trademarks” Grow in Popularity and Legal Protection Around The World’ (2019) Pattishall Insights. https://www.pattishall.com/pdf/2019-10%20Pattishall%20Insights.pdf.
Shuju, F. ‘Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Enterprise Management and Economic Development: New Challenge on Intellectual Property: Smell Trademark’. (2021) Volume 178. Atlantis Press - Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125957360.pdf.
Starke (Beijing) Intellectual Property Co. Ltd. ‘Latest News about Non- Traditional Trademarks in China’ (2019). https://www.starke-ip.com/en/news/latest-news-about-non-traditional-trademarks-in-china.
Torres Montenegro, M.E. ‘Exclusion of the graphic representation requirement in the Andean Community of Nations’ trademark regime’. (2021) Vol 8. No 2. Universidad San Francisco de Quito. USFQ Law Review. https://revistas.usfq.edu.ec/index.php/lawreview/article/download/2316/2875?inline=1#fn12.
World Intellectual Property Office. ‘Existing Methods of Representation and Description of New Types of Marks or Non-Traditional Marks’. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sct/en/comments/pdf/sct17/au_2.pdf.
World Trade Organization. ‘A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement’ (2020) Cambridge University Press. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ta_docs_e/modules3_e.pdf.
Wininger, A. R. ‘China’s Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Christian Louboutin’s Red Sole Trademark’ (2020) Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. https://www.slwip.com/resources/chinas-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-christianlouboutins-red-sole-trademark/.
Wu, A. ‘Protection of non-traditional trademarks lags behind in China’ (2019) World Trademark Review. https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/protection-non-traditional-trademarks-lags-behind-in-china.
Citado por
