February 2008 |
|
In this issue: |
 |
 |
|
........................................................ |
 |
Hot topic: When Recognition Defeats a Shape Trade Mark |
........................................................ |
 |
|
........................................................ |
|
| Welcome to Spruson & Ferguson's new abridged Trade Marks E-news, designed to better accommodate you in your busy day. |
GRACE PERIOD FOR RENEWAL REDUCED TO 6 MONTHS |
 |
As of 28 March 2008, in accordance with amendments to the legislation incorporated in the Trade Marks Amendment Act 2006 (No. 114, 2006), the period in which a trade mark can be renewed after it is due will reduce from 12 months to 6 months.
Back to top
|
|
..................................................................................................................................
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO |
 |
As at 3 June 2006 the former union of Serbia and Montenegro separated and became two independent countries. Each country will have its own Trade Mark Office and will be regarded as a separate jurisdiction for trade mark registration purposes. All intellectual property rights, applications and registrations gained in Yugoslavia or Serbia & Montenegro, will be automatically valid in Serbia. No action will be required to maintain your trade mark registration in Serbia.
Montenegro does not currently have an operating IP Office and no firm date has been released for when it may become functional, although it is expected to occur some time in early 2008. Procedures have been formulated for the registration of trade marks in Montenegro which will come into effect upon the opening of the IP Office. These procedures are briefly indicated below.
 |
Registrations granted in Serbia & Montenegro prior to 3 June 2006 and registrations granted in Serbia on or after 3 June 2006 but prior to the functional date of the Montenegro IP Office will be automatically valid in Montenegro. It will be necessary to file an application in order to obtain recordal of a registration on the Montenegro Trade Marks Register. |
 |
Pending applications in Serbia & Montenegro will require revalidation at the Montenegro IP Office within six months of the date the Office becomes functional. The application will then undergo re-examination. |
 |
The deadline for extending International Registrations designating Serbia to Montenegro was 30 October 2007, which has now passed. |
Kosovo has recently declared its independence from Serbia. In anticipation, Kosovo has for some time begun developing its own intellectual property laws and procedures and officially opened its Trade Mark Office on 19 November 2007. Protection can be extended to Kosovo for any current national Serbian registration (including those obtained in Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro) filed before 19 November 2007. Pending Serbian applications filed after 19 November 2007 will need to be re-filed and re examined at the Kosovo IP Office. There is currently a tentative deadline of 19 November 2008 for obtaining re-registration in Kosovo. As Kosovo is not a signatory to the Madrid Protocol it is not currently possible to extend International Registrations designating Serbia to Kosovo. This situation is still liable to change and we recommend advice be sought before any positive steps are taken.
Back to top
|
..................................................................................................................................
|
UK-IPO EXAMINATION PROCEDURES |
 |
Important changes have taken place to UK trade mark examination procedures. As of 1 October 2007 the UK-IPO (previously the UK Trade Marks Registry) will no longer refuse a UK trade mark application due to conflicting prior rights (relative grounds) unless the owner of the earlier mark files opposition. The Examiner will continue to search for earlier conflicting marks, but rather than object to an application on this basis, will provide the Applicant with a provisional list of those marks. The Applicant will then have one opportunity for two months (extendible) to persuade the Examiner to remove the cited marks by limiting their conflicting goods or services, argument, or by ‘consent’ from the owner of an earlier cited mark. The application will then be published and open for opposition for three months.
Owners of cited UK trade marks and International trade marks designating the UK will be automatically notified if their trade mark has been cited. However, owners of cited European Community trade marks and International trade marks designating the European Community will only be notified if they ‘opt-in’ to the notification system which requires the payment of a fee, and lasts three years.
For existing applications on which an Examiner’s Report has already issued, transition provisions will apply. The Applicant will have the opportunity to adopt the new procedure, whereupon objections on relative grounds will be suspended, the application will proceed to acceptance, and owners of cited marks will be given the opportunity to oppose.
Back to top
|
..................................................................................................................................
|
| A PATENT BY ANY OTHER NAME: WHEN RECOGNITION DEFEATS A SHAPE TRADE MARK |
| Mayne Industries Pty Ltd v Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd |
Mayne Industries Pty Ltd v Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 27 (23 January 2008), the first case to consider the operation of section 25 under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), is a cautionary tale for patent owners seeking to extend protection of their intellectual property by trade marking the shape of their invention. Public policy considerations were influential when the Federal Court recently cancelled a registered trade mark in these circumstances.
In this case the applicant (Mayne) was the owner of a registered trade mark (dating from May 2001) for a three dimensional “S” shape for “fence droppers” (used to space the wire strands in stock fencing).
Mayne alleged that Advanced Engineering had infringed its registered trade mark by importing fence droppers which embodied the S shape into Australia, offering them for sale and promoting them in advertising brochures. Advanced Engineering cross claimed seeking cancellation of Mayne’s registration on the grounds that it contained a sign that described a fence dropper formerly protected by a patent owned by Mayne, contrary to section 25 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
Under s25 the registered trade mark owner loses the exclusive right to use or authorise anyone else to use the trade mark in respect of goods and services covered by the registration where:
 |
the trade mark consists of or contains a sign that describes or is the name of an article or substance formerly exploited under a patent (or a service formerly provided as a patented process); and |
 |
more than two years have passed since the expiry of the patent; and |
 |
the trade mark is the only commonly known way to describe or identify the article, substance or service. |
If s25 were established, Mayne would lose the exclusive rights to the trade mark 2 years after the patent expired (on 8 October 1984), some years before the trade mark was registered and would have no statutory rights to allege infringement.
Justice Greenwood found that the shape of the S loop adopted in Mayne’s fence dropper was primarily dictated by its function. Moreover, during the 16 years of the patent term and continuing in the post patent period the “commonly known” way of describing Mayne’s dropper had become the “S” shape of the loop. Consequently, the depiction of an “S Shape” dropper in Advanced Engineering’s advertising brochure and its importation and sale of a dropper containing an S loop did not constitute use as a trade mark and, as a result, did not infringe Mayne’s registered trade mark.
Justice Greenwood’s decision was influenced by the policy underlying the statutory monopoly given to inventors under patent law. The “social compact” underlying patent legislation is the encouragement of innovation and invention by the grant of a monopoly for a set term following which others are free to manufacture and develop the invention. According to his Honour, trade marks legislation is not a means by which inventors can secure further exclusive rights (through infringement proceedings) for the shape of a functional manner of new manufacture formerly the subject of a patent.
Mayne’s conduct was also relevant in the decision to cancel the registration. Again policy considerations influenced his Honour in concluding that Mayne had deliberately set out to:
| “…strategically put itself in the same position, through registration of a three-dimensional shape for a functional “S” shaped loop for embodiment in fence droppers, as it would have been in, had the expired patent remained on foot, with the added advantage that exclusive rights of use and the right to obtain relief for infringement thus obtained, would be renewable every 10 years…”. |
This case illustrates that trade mark registration will not assist the owners of expired or expiring patents to extend their rights where the sign in question, in this case a three dimensional shape for a farming implement, has become the commonly known way of describing that particular article.
For further information please contact Hilary May Black at hilary.mayblack@sprusons.com.au
Back to top
|
| |
Spruson & Ferguson is pleased to announce the appointment of Lance Scott as a Principal in the Trade Marks team.
Lance Scott is a lawyer and registered trade marks attorney, specialising in the protection and management of brands.
Lance has considerable intellectual property legal experience, having worked in industry and private practice in Australia, New Zealand and London. Lance has chaired a subcommittee (Asia-Pacific, Latin America & Africa) of the International Trade Marks Association (INTA) Dilution & Well Known Marks Committee. He has also served on both the New South Wales and Victorian Committees of the Licensing Executives Society, Australia and New Zealand (LES ANZ).
Back to top
|
| We are interested in your feedback. Email TradeMarksEnews@sprusons.com.au to let us know if Trade Marks eNews targets your interests or to give your suggestions for future issues. Please also let us know if you have a colleague who would like to be added to our circulation list |
We are here to be of service to you. If you have any questions about how to best protect your brands and trade marks or if you wish to discuss searching, registration, watching services, objecting to misuse of your marks by others, protection overseas or any other aspect of managing your trade mark portfolio, we would be happy to arrange a meeting.
Our principals and associates are available to present seminars and information sessions to your staff. Please call Annette Freeman or Gerard Skelly on (02) 9393 0100 or email annette.freeman@sprusons.com.au or gerard.skelly@sprusons.com.au |
|
Address:
Level 35, St Martins Tower
31 Market Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Mail to:
GPO Box 3898
Sydney NSW 2001 Australia
Telephone: +61 2 9393 0100
Facsimile: +61 2 9261 5486
Email: mail@sprusons.com.au
Web Site: www.sprusons.com.au |
© Spruson & Ferguson 2008. This Newsletter is for the general information of our clients. Its contents are not a complete statement of the law on any subject. Professional advice should be sought before any course of action is pursued.
If you do not wish to receive a copy of this Newsletter, please email to TradeMarksEnews@sprusons.com.au with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Back to top
|
|