Nematomo žymens registravimo Europos Bendrijos prekių ženklu problematika
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
Ūkio subjektai išimtinėmis teisėmis gali siekti apsaugoti ne tik tradicinius, klasikinius savo prekėms ar paslaugoms žymėti skirtus prekių ženklus (žodžius, etiketes), bet ir prekių ženklus, kuriuose yra nematomas žymuo, suvokiamus kitais nei rega žmogaus jutimais (garsą, kvapą, skonį). Straipsnyje taikant mokslinius teorinius ir empirinius metodus tiriama prekių ženklo, kuriame yra nematomas žymuo, samprata, aptariamos pagrindinės šios kategorijos ženklų teisinio reglamentavimo nuostatos, kai kurių absoliučių reikalavimų prekių ženklui, kuriame yra nematomas žymuo, taikymo ypatumai, grafinio pavaizdavimo reikalavimo taikymo ypatumai kvapo bei skonio prekių ženklams, grafinio pavaizdavimo reikalavimo taikymo ypatumai garsiniams prekių ženklams. Tyrimas atliekamas remiantis Europos Sąjungos teisės aktais, analizuojant prekių ženklo, kuriame yra nematomas žymuo, registravimo Europos Bendrijos prekių ženklu galimybes.
Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt), which dealt with the issue of graphic representation, specifically for smells. The ECJ confirmed that a trademark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of being perceived visually, provided that it can be represented graphically, particularly by means of images, lines or characters, and that the representation is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. In principle ECJ has not ruled out the possibility of a smell being registered as a trademark, the criteria it has set out are likely to be very difficult to satisfy and this is the main reason why non-visual marks have been available to register as a Community Trademark for more than fourteen years, but still prove problematic. The ECJ Shield Mark decision (Case C-283/01, Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex, etc.) made clear that sound marks must be considered capable of being regarded as trademarks provided they are capable of distinguishing and capable of being represented graphically. This decision confirms that the requirements for graphical representation set out in Sieckmann case apply also to sound marks. Shield Mark judgment allowed sound marks to be represented by musical notation, even though to most people this kind of representation is not easily accessible. Later on, the OHIM made a clarification relation to onomatopoeic sounds that cannot be represented in the form of musical notation, it was held that a description of the sound along with the sound recording in MP3 format would meet the criterion as well. The advent of electronic filing has been particular trademarkly useful for the filing of sound marks. Graphical representation of variety sound s can now be accompanied with a suitable graphical representation (musical notation) and /or a sound file.