許多老式品牌(vintage brand)曾經紅極一時,但隨著企業持續創新,未必能一直活躍到今日。原則上,商標若是不再使用,便會面臨廢止的命運,不過,歐洲法院在2020年Ferrari SpA v DU一案明確揭示得免於廢止的幾項條件,可說是為逐漸被歲月淘汰的老式品牌帶來一線生機。
圖片來源 : shutterstock、達志影像
本案 [1]上訴人Ferrari曾於1987年向世界智慧財產權組織(WIPO)註冊下圖標誌為國際商標(No.515107),指定使用於尼斯分類第12類商品「車輛;陸地、空中或水上之移動裝置,尤其是汽車及其零件」。其後,Ferrari於1990年以相同標誌向德國專利商標局(Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt)註冊為商標(No.11158448),同樣指定使用於第12類商品「陸地車輛、飛機與水上車輛及其零件;陸地車輛之馬達與引擎;汽車元件,包括牽引桿、行李置放架、滑雪板托架、擋泥板、雪鏈、空氣導流板、頭枕、安全帶、兒童安全座椅等」。
儘管指令第12(1)條並未涵蓋非會員國的使用情形,但若是會員國於1958年1月1日前或其加入歐盟之日前締結的公約,允許考量非會員國之締約方的商標使用情形,能否根據歐盟運作條約(Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU)第351(1)條而繼續適用此類公約(例如本案涉及之1892年公約),便成為問題。
Ferrari SpA v DU, joined cases C-720/18 and C-721/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:854.
EUTD Article 12, “(1) A trade mark shall be liable to revocation if, within a continuous period of five years, it has not been put to genuine use in the Member State in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use.
(2) However, no person may claim that the proprietor’s rights in a trade mark should be revoked where, during the interval between expiry of the five-year period and filing of the application for revocation, genuine use of the trade mark has been started or resumed.”
Ansul v Ajax, C–40/01, EU:C:2003:145.
EUTD Article 13, “Where grounds for refusal of registration or for revocation or invalidity of a trade mark exist in respect of only some of the goods or services for which that trade mark has been applied for or registered, refusal of registration or revocation or invalidity shall cover those goods or services only.”
ACTC v EUIPO, C‑714/18 P, EU:C:2020:573.
EUTD Article 7(1), “The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.”