•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Legal development introduces the new type of trademarks differ to those of the conventional ones. This paper gives an account of non-conventional trademarks categories, particularly sound, scent and taste mark, in terms of their registration. Subsequently, it also further illustrates that graphical representation, as a prerequisite, stifles the registration of non-conventional trademarks through recent studies and cases both in the European Union and United States. European Union, under Trademark Directive 2008, required graphical representation as a requirement which turned out to be the primary problem in terms of registration for non-conventional trademarks. United States, having no such requirement, tend to be more acceptable in registering non-conventional trademarks. This paper also argues that graphical representation is immaterial and its removal from the relevant provision increases the legal certainty and flexibility. Problem of non-conventional trademarks registration incurred by graphical representation requirement is most likely to be faced by Indonesia which tries to encompass the protection of non-conventional trademarks. Indonesian Trademark Law requires Label Merek (a representation form), which in common practice is seen merely as representation form that consists of lines, images and character (graphically represented form), as a minimum requirement for trademark registration. Seeing Label Merek merely as a graphical represented form will stifle the registration of non-conventional trademarks. Therefore, such representation form needs to be construed broadly beyond graphically represented form in order to encompass the protection of non-conventional trademarks.

Bahasa Abstract

Perkembangan hukum dewasa ini menelurkan tipe merek yang berbeda dari merek yang dikenal pada umumnya. Tulisan ini menerangkan kategori merek-merek nonkonvensional antara lain merek aroma (scent mark), merek suara dan merek rasa (taste mark) dari sisi pendaftaran atas merek-merek tersebut. Selanjutnya, tulisan ini mengilustrasikan bahwa representasi grafis (graphical representation) sebagai prasyarat akan menyulitkan pendaftaran atas merek-merek non-konvensional tersebut yang di ekstraksi dari studi-studi dan kasus-kasus terkini baik dari Uni Eropa maupun Amerika Serikat. Uni Eropa dengan melalui Trademark Directive 2008, mengharuskan representasi grafis sebagai prasyarat yang mana kemudian menjadi masalah utama dalam pendaftaran merek-merek non-konvensional. Amerika serikat, sebagai negara yang tidak menyaratkan representasi grafis, cenderung lebih menerima pendaftaran atas merek-merek non-konvensional. Lebih lanjut tulisan ini juga menerangkan bahwa penghapusan representasi grafis sebagai prasyaratdari aturan-aturan terkait meningkatkan fleksibilitas dan kepastian hukum. Permasalahan hukum yang muncul akibat representasi grafis sebagai prasyarat akan dihadapi oleh Indonesia yang berusaha untuk mencakup perlindungan atas merek-merek nonkonvensional. Undang-undang merek di Indonesia menyaratkan Label Merek (bentuk representasi), dimana secara praktis bentuk representasi tersebut antara lain berupa garis, gambar dan karakter (bentuk yang direpresentasikan secara grafis) sebagai prasyarat minimum atas suatu pendaftaran merek. Melihat Label Merek hanya sebagai bentuk yang direpresentasikan secara grafis akan menyulitkan pendaftaran atas merek-merek non-konvensional. Oleh karena itu, bentuk representasi tersebut harus diinterpretasikan secara luas melebihi bentuk representasi secara grafis dalam rangka mencakup perlindungan merek-merek non konvensional.

References

Bibliography

Legal Documents

Eli Lilly and Company's Application [2004] E.T.M.R. 4 (Case R 120/2001-2) Paragraph 12

European Commission, ‘Letter of Invitation to Tender’ n° MARKT/2009/12/D, Study On The Overall Functioning Of The Trade Mark System In Europe.

In re Clarke, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238 (T.T.A.B.1990).

Law no.20 of 2016 Concerning Trademark Article 4 Sub Article (4).

Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Case C-104/01).

Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ‘Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System’ [2011] 67.

National Law Development Agency of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, ‘Academic Draft of Indonesian Trademark Law’ [2015].

Shield Mark BV v Kist (tla Memex) (C-283/01) [2004] All ER (EC) 277, [2005] 1 CMLR 41, [2004] Ch 97, [2004] ETMR 33, [2004] RPC 17, [2004] 2 WLR 1117, ECJ.

Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt, Case C-273/00, [2002] ECR I-11737.

Sumitomo Rubber Co's Application No 2001416, 31 October 1994.

European Union, Trademark Directive 2008, Article 2.

European Union, Trademark Directive 2015, Article 3.

United States, Trademark Registration No: 1700895 of The melody "Sweet Georgia Brown".

United States, Trademark Registration No: 1761724 of the mark consists of the spoken letters ‘AT &T’.

United States, Trademark Registration No: 200096 of The sound "Ooh it's so good"

United States, Trademark Registration No: 2210506, a yell consisting of a series of approximately ten sounds.

United States, Trademark Registration No: 2473248, the mark consists of thirty musical notes.

United States, Trademark Registration No: 3332910 of Lactona Corpora’s “scent of strawberry” for “toothbrushes impregnated with the scent of strawberries”

United States, Trademark Registration No: 3849102 of Kalin Manchev’s “rose oil scent or fragrance” for “advertising and marketing”

United States, Trademark Registration No: 4144511 of SHS International’s “scent of a pina colada” for “musical instruments, namely ukuleles”

United States, Trademark Registration No: 4618936 of Verizon’s “flowery musk scent” for “retail store services featuring communication products and services and consumer electronics, demonstration of product”

United States, Trademark Registration No: 4754435 of Grendene’s “scent of bubble gum” for “Shoes, sandals, flip flops, and accessories, namely, flip flop bags”

Vennootschap Onder Firma Senta Aromatic Marketing's Application [1999] E.T.M.R. 429 (Case R 156/1998-2).

World Trade Organization, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Article 15.1

Books

Alison Firth, Gary Lea and Peter Cornford, ‘Trade Marks Law and Practice’ (3rd edition, Jordan 2012) 28.

Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, ‘Non-conventional Trademarks under United States Law: An Unbounded New Frontier of Branding’, in Mark Perry, Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century: Reflecting Policy through Change (Springer 2016) 182.

Roger E. Schechter, John R. Thomas, ‘Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks’ [West 2003] 632.

Articles

Amanda E Compton, ‘Acquiring a Flavor for Trademarks: There's No Common Taste in the World’ [2010] Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Vol.8:3 345.

Danny Friedmann, ‘EU opens door for sound marks: will scent marks follow?’ [2015] Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Vol.10 No.12 935.

Jacob Bolte, ‘The Removal of the Requirement for Graphical Representation of EU Trade Marks’ (Orebro University, 2016) 6.

Lisa P Lukose, ‘Non-Traditional Trademarks: A Critique’ [2016] Journal of Indian Law Institute Vol.57:2 198.

Pedro Vilhena, ‘Registrability of Nontraditional Trademarks in Brazil: Current Situation and Perspectives’ [2016] 106 TMR 934.

Roberto Carapeto, ‘A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks’ [2016] Waseda Bulletin of Comparative Law Vol.34 25.

Qian Zhan, ‘The International Registration of Non-traditional Trademarks: Compliance with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention’ [2016] World Trade Review 119.

Websites

NON-TRADITIONAL MARKS AT THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADMARK OFFICE accessed on 17 April 2017.

Download

Share

COinS