Trade Marks: Prince Ernst August of Hanover & Brunswick etc v OHIM

The challenge by the Prince of Hanover to the decision of the First Board of Appeal upholding the examiner's decision to dismiss the Prince's application to register his family coat of arms as a trade mark is a peach of a case. Unfortunately, the transcript of T-397/09 Prinz von Hannover v OHIM [2011] T-EUECJ 397/09 (25 May 2011) is in French. No English or even Anglophone judges or lawyers seem to have taken part.

Before I go into the facts of the case it is worth reading the Wikipedia articles on the House of Hanover and the House of Windsor for some background. It will be seen that the link with Hanover was broken when Queen Victoria acceded to the throne. The royal family changed its name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor at height of the First World War - just about the time of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The current head of the House of Hanover is Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, the third husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco.

His Royal Highness (if that is how he is to be styled) or Monsieur Ernst August as the applicant's name appears in the law report applied to register the following sign as a Community trade mark for a large number of goods and services in classes 16. 25, 28. 32, 33, 35, 39. 41 and 43:

Looks familiar? Well that's what the examiner thought when he (or she) rejected the application on the ground that it was uncannily similar to the coat of arms of the United Kingdom which is protected under art 6ter of the Paris Convention. The Prince appealed to the Board of Appeal which upheld the examiner.

In an action in the General Court against the Board's decision before Judges Czucz, Lubucka and Gratsia, Prince Ernst August argued that there are significant differences between his sign and the royal coat of arms and that they are put to different uses. Rejecting his argument, the Court held that art 7 (1) (h) of Regulation 208/2009 precludes the registration of signs that fall within the scope of art 6ter of Paris unless such registration is authorized by the competent authorities whom I assume to be Cam, Clegg & Co. in this case. Although the transcript is not altogether clear on the point the Prince seems to have argued (possibly with some justification) that his coat of arms had been in his family just as long as they had been with our royals. The Court held that did not matter when the arms were protected as national emblems under the Paris Convention. Also, they added that Arthur & Felicie [2005] ECR II-4891 doesn't apply since art 6ter prohibits similar as well as identical signs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more