Time to rethink the limits to trade mark rights?
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Time to rethink the limits to trade mark rights?

Last week the UK introduced clear exceptions to the rights of copyright owners. Is it now time to set out the limits to trade mark law and clarify what third parties can do with registered marks?

Among the changes introduced into the UK’s copyright regime on October 2 are a new format shifting exception and the right to use copyright material for legitimate parodies. There is also a new exception for criticism or review, which follows more exceptions for libraries, schools and disabled people, which came into force in June. Should there be similar exceptions for trade marks?

The answer from a group of more than 30 academicsfrom across Europe seems to be yes. They have urged lawmakers considering the European Commission’s proposals to update the Trade Marks Directive and CTM Regulation to clarify what exceptions exist.

Court-of-justice-judges

In particular, they argue that the rights of trade mark owners need to be balanced with freedom of expression and the guarantee of undistorted competition, saying that such balance is important in the light of “ongoing technological, economic and social developments”.

The implication is that trade mark law has gone too far in protecting the rights of trade mark owners. That is an argument that may have gained strength since the Court of Justice of the EU (judges, pictured right) began expanding the list of legitimate “functions” of a trade mark.

Specifying a list of exceptions to trade mark rights might lead to rather messy, loophole-filled legislation. But perhaps it is necessary to preserve public support for trade mark law.

So far much of the debate about the right balance to be struck between the rights of IP owners and those of competitors and consumers has been focused on copyright (think ACTA, SOPAand PIPA) and on patents (think the debates on software and business method patents, and cases such as Myriad). In those areas of the law, it seems that a backlash from increasingly organised consumers and civil society has led to a rethink on the part of policy makers and a recognition on the part of IP owners that advocating a strong pro-IP position could ultimately weaken support for the whole IP system.

Does this new call from a group of academics reflect similar tensions within the trade mark sphere? If so, does the line between the rights of trade mark owners and the rights of trade mark users and third parties need to be redrawn? Let us know what you think.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article