This month the CJEU hiked into the little-travelled hinterland of contemporary IP law on the trail of a particularly quirky and rarely-glimpsed creature – the position trade mark.
這個月，歐盟法院走進了當代智慧財產權法領域裡中鮮有人知的領域，追蹤一個奇特、罕見的「生物」——位置商標。
Background
背景
Disputes relating to non-traditional trade marks have been the staple form of popular entertainment for IP lawyers over the last five years as a number of iconic shape marks and colour marks withered under scrutiny of the higher courts. We saw the 3D trade mark for the iconic London taxi written off and left abandoned on the hard shoulder. We saw Kit Kat's famous fingers crumble in their awkwardly opaque packaging. We saw Cadbury grudgingly surrender its registration for the colour purple after a protracted battle.
在過去的五年裡，與非傳統商標有關的糾紛一直是智慧財產權律師們的主要娛樂，因為一些標誌性的立體商標和顏色商標在上級法院的審查下逐漸消失。我們看到標誌性的倫敦計程車立體商標被註銷了，被遺棄在堅硬的肩膀上。我們看到奇巧著名的手指在不透明的包裝中破碎。我們看到吉百利在一場曠日持久的戰鬥後，不情願地放棄了紫色的註冊。
However, position trade marks are the Iberian lynx of the IP forest, so rare as to be virtually unknown beyond their own unique niche. The EUIPO recently received its two millionth EU trade mark application. However, according to the EUIPO database there are only 115 applications classified as "position marks", since that categorization was introduced on the EUIPO database in 2017. Over the same period, there were 833 new applications for 3D trade marks and over 125,000 for word marks. 86 of the applications for position marks remain live and 38 of those, around 44% of the total, are in class 25 and cover apparel products.
然而，位置商標是智慧財產權森林的伊比利亞猞猁，非常罕見，除了他們自己獨特的位置，幾乎是未知的。歐盟知識產權局最近收到了他們第200萬份歐盟商標申請。然而，根據歐盟知識產權局資料庫顯示，自2017年歐盟知識產權局資料庫開始「位置商標」的分類以來，只有115份申請被列為「位置商標」。同期，立體商標新增申請833件，文字商標新增申請12.5萬件。位置商標申請中86件仍然有效，其中38件(約佔總數的44%)屬於第25類別，覆蓋成衣製品。
What is a position trade mark?
位置商標是什麼？
So what is a position trade mark and why do apparel businesses find them valuable? A registered position trade mark protects a feature as applied to a given product in a specific and distinctive position. Here are some examples filed during the last year, all of which remain under examination.
那麼，什麼是位置商標？為什麼服裝企業認為它們有價值？註冊位置商標保護應用於特定位置的特定產品的特徵。以下是去年提交的一些案例，所有這些案子都還在審查之中。
Why are position marks useful?
位置商標為什麼有用？
Why is the concept of a position mark particularly useful to apparel businesses? It is now several decades since apparel businesses realised that, by wearing their products, customers can become – in effect – walking billboards for the brand. The first iteration of this approach was the development of externally visible apparel branding: names and logos on the front of clothing. Ralph Lauren's visibly branded polo shirts in the early 1970s are an example and the trend became widespread through the 1980s, particularly as sportswear began to merge with fashion. It became normal to wear a brand name across your chest.
為什麼位置商標的概念對服裝企業特別有用？幾十年前，服裝企業就意識到，只要穿上自己的產品，顧客就能成為其品牌「行走的廣告牌」。這種方法的第一個迭代是開發外部可見的服裝品牌：服裝前襟的名稱和標識。拉夫•勞倫(Ralph Lauren)在上世紀70年代初推出的打上明顯品牌的polo衫就是一個例子，這一趨勢在整個80年代得到了廣泛傳播，尤其是在運動裝開始與時尚融合之時。胸前掛著一個品牌變得很常見。
However, names and logos only take you so far. Most IP lawyers would not wear a Nike branded t-shirt to a client meeting, however much they like the brand. Position trade marks allow businesses to protect other features that, while less complex than logos or names, can still be recognised and understood by consumers if used consistently and in a specific way.
然而，名字和商標也僅限於此。大多數智慧財產權律師不會穿耐克品牌的t恤去見客戶，不管他們多麼喜歡這個品牌。位置商標允許企業保護其他特徵，儘管這些特徵沒有商標或名稱那麼複雜，但如果始終如一地以特定的方式使用，消費者仍然可以識別並熟悉它們。
Munich SL's mark
慕尼黑SL的商標
The position trade mark that came before the CJEU this month is particularly venerable. It is owned by Munich SL, a footwear business founded in Barcelona in the 1930s, and protects a black cross as applied to the side of a shoe, which Munich has been using since the mid-1960s. The EUTM representation is shown below.
歐洲法院這個月審理的位置商標是一個非常有聲望的商標。它的所有者是慕尼黑SL，（以下簡稱「慕尼黑」），一家上世紀30年代在巴塞隆納成立的鞋業公司。該商標保護了一個在鞋子側面的黑色十字交叉圖形。該商標是慕尼黑自上世紀60年代中期以來一直在使用的。該歐盟商標如下圖所示。
The application was filed 17 years ago in 2002 and was registered in 2004. Munich had sought to enforce the EUTM registration against Deichmann, a well-established footwear retailer based in Essen and trading throughout Europe. Deichmann retaliated by seeking to revoke Munich's EUTM on the grounds of non-use in proceedings before the EUIPO. Inevitably, the matter ended up before the CJEU.
該申請於17年前的2002年提交，並於2004年註冊。慕尼黑曾試圖對德國戴希曼（一下簡稱「戴希曼」）行使其歐盟註冊商標專用權。戴希曼是一家總部位於埃森、業務遍及歐洲的知名鞋類零售商。作為報復，戴希曼向歐盟知識產權局基於未使用理由提出撤銷慕尼黑的歐盟商標註冊。不可避免地，這個案子最終還是訴至歐盟法院。
Deichmann's argument
戴希曼的爭辯
Deichmann's argument is a subtle one. The application had been filed as a "figurative" trade mark. The application form had four options: "marca denominativa", "marca figurativa", "tridimensional" and "otro" (word mark, figurative mark, 3D mark and 'other'). Munich's representative had ticked the second box. On this basis, Deichmann argued, the mark should be construed as a figurative mark and used in that way. Since Munich had used the black cross on shoes but had not used an image of the whole stylised shoe, dotted lines and all, it had not used the mark "as registered" and could not defeat the revocation action.
戴希曼的爭辯很狡猾——該申請被作為圖形商標提出。申請表格有四個選項:文字商標、圖形商標、立體商標和其他。慕尼黑的商標代理人在第二個選項上打了勾。在這個基礎上，戴希曼認為，該商標應該被視為圖形商標，並以這種方式進行使用。由於慕尼黑在鞋子上使用了黑叉，但沒有使用整隻帶有虛線的鞋子的圖形，因此它並不是使用一個「已註冊」的商標，也就無法對抗撤銷請求。
It is noted that at the time of filing, prior to the 2017 reforms, 'position trade mark' was not explicitly listed as an option, although the application could have been classified under 'other'.
值得注意的是，在提交申請時，也就是2017年更改之前，「位置商標」並沒有明確被列為商標申請的一個選項，但這類申請可以被歸為「其他」選項。
General Court's decision
普通法院的決定
The General Court did not accept Deichmann's argument. The court found that the technical classification of a given application should not override the characteristics of the mark as represented. It also found that there is a degree of overlap between figurative marks and position marks, and that it was clear from the representation that the dotted lines should be understood as enabling the position of the cross to be specified, as is common in trade mark representations. On this basis, it construed the registration as protecting a position mark and found that Munich's use of the black cross on the side of various shoes over the years constituted genuine use of the mark as registered.
普通法院沒有接受戴希曼的論點。法院認為，一個特定申請的技術分類不應凌駕於所代表商標的特徵之上。調查還發現,圖形商標和位置商標在一定程度上常有重合，這很明顯地表示，虛線應該被理解為該交叉指定使用的特定位置，是常見的商標表示。在此基礎上，普通法院將該商標註冊解釋為保護一個位置商標，並認為慕尼黑多年來在各種鞋的側面使用黑十字構成了註冊商標的真實使用。
CJEU ruling
歐盟法院的判決
Deichmann's sole ground of appeal before the CJEU was that the General Court had erred in law by failing to give proper weight to the administrative classification of the application as a figurative mark rather than a position mark. The CJEU did not accept Deichmann's arguments. It pointed out that position marks had not been officially defined at the time of filing and there was no explicit classification for those marks. Furthermore, the court agreed with the General Court that the starting point for assessing a trade mark was the representation of that mark. If the representation satisfied the Sieckmanncriteria in being clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective, and was also readily understood as a position mark, then it was appropriate to apply the case-law relating to position marks when assessing it.
戴希曼向歐盟法院提出上訴的唯一根據是，對於將商標歸於圖形商標而不是位置商標的行政劃分，普通法院沒有給予足夠的重視，這一點在法律上是錯誤的。歐盟法院沒有接受戴希曼的觀點。它指出，在提交文件時，位置商標還沒有被正式定義，這些標記也沒有明確的分類。此外，法院同意一般法院的意見，認為評價一個商標的基礎是該商標的圖樣。如果該圖樣清楚、精確、獨立、容易取得、易懂、持久和客觀方面符合《西克曼標準》，並且也容易被理解為位置商標，那麼在評價位置商標時適用與位置商標有關的判例法是適當的。
The CJEU also rejected Deichmann's argument that unless the dotted lines in the representation had been explicitly disclaimed, then they should be considered a part of the mark as filed. The court pointed out that there is no obligation under EUTM law to add written descriptions or disclaimers. The court did, however, acknowledge that more recent EUIPO guidance suggests that position marks should be explicitly specified, although it pointed out that such guidance is not itself legally binding. In any event, Deichmann's appeal failed and Munich's EUTM remains registered. (See the CJEU judgment in this case C‑223/18 P.)
歐洲法院還駁回了戴希曼的主張，即除非明確表示放棄圖樣中的虛線，否則它們應被視為提交的商標的一部分。 法院指出，歐盟商標法中沒有賦予書面說明或免責聲明的要求。 然而，法院確實承認，最近的歐盟知識產權局指導建議應明確位置商標，儘管它指出這種指導本身並不具有法律約束力。 無論如何，戴希曼的上訴失敗了，慕尼黑的EUTM仍在註冊。 （參見本案中CJEU判決C 223/18 P.）
Comment
評論
Overall, the CJEU's judgment is a reminder that what matters first and foremost in matters of EU trade mark law is the representation of the mark. The administrative classification of mark type, as with the Nice classification of goods and services, is just that – an administrative aid rather than an artificial constraint on the fundamental nature of the right identified. When assessing a position mark, like any other trade mark, the key questions are whether the representation clearly specifies an identifiable brand identifier, whether that brand identifier can be distinctive of commercial origin and whether its use is consistent with that purpose.
總體而言，歐洲法院的判決提醒人們，歐盟商標法最重要的是商標的代表性。 與商品和服務的尼斯分類一樣，商標類型的行政分類就是 - 行政手段而不是對所識別權利的基本性質的人為約束。 在評估位置商標時，與任何其他商標一樣，關鍵問題是該圖樣是否明確指定了可識別的品牌標識，該品牌標識是否可以使商業來源更突出，以及其使用是否與該目的一致。
Potential applicants for position trade marks do still need to proceed with some caution. Since 2017, the EUIPO has had an explicit classification for position trade marks and the official guidance does ask that applicants make use of this classification to explicitly identify position trade marks at the time of filing. We would certainly recommend that applicants follow this advice and avoid the ambiguities with which Deichmann tried to bring down Munich's registration. However, the fact that position marks, and a range of other rare beasts such as motion marks, pattern marks and hologram marks, are now explicitly dealt with in the EUIPO's procedures since 2017 may also make it more attractive for businesses to explore those less trodden paths. And for the applicant who is determined to break a completely new trail in search of mythical IP beasts, the EUIPO still has that magical, unexplored category "Other".
潛在的位置商標申請人仍然需要謹慎行事。 自2017年以來，歐盟知識產權局對職位商標進行了明確分類，官方指南確實要求申請人在提交申請時使用此分類明確識別位置商標。 我們當然會建議申請人遵循這一建議，避免如戴希曼試圖打破慕尼黑之註冊的類似歧義。 然而，自2017年以來歐盟知識產權局程序中明確處理了位置商標以及一系列其他稀有物種（如動態商標，圖案標記和全息商標）的事實，這也可能使企業更有吸引力探索那些少有人走的路。 對於那些為尋找智慧財產權神獸而有決心開創全新路徑的申請人來說，歐盟知識產權局仍然擁有那個神奇而又有待探索的「其他」類型。
Hastings Guise
Partner 合伙人
斐石律師事務所倫敦辦公室
hastings.guise@fieldfisher.com
Laura Feng 馮夷
Partner 合伙人
斐石律師事務所北京辦公室
laura.feng@fieldfisher.com