The present article is meant to clarify the appropriate manner of law interpretation, in order to guarantee the right to register a trademark and obtain protection over a certain product or service, having a correct and reasonable examination by the registrar.
No internal rule can prevail over the law.
The true administration of justice requires an objective analysis and correct application of the law, as it was written and published by the legislator.
The present paper tackles the matter of well-known status according to the Romanian law and practice.
The first part of the article presents the provisions of the Romanian Trademarks Law regarding well-known marks before being republished in 2010, showing the evolution of this notion the way the scope of protection of well-known trademarks changed, along with those regarding trademarks with reputation.
Further on, the article describes the means of protection for well-known trademarks, both in procedural and court actions. One of the discussed issues is whether proving the existence of the likelihood of confusion, including the likelihood of association, is a condition for enforcing well-known trademarks.
The article also makes a brief description of possible evidence for supporting a well-known status claim, referring to different types of evidence or determining the moment in time when the well-known status should be proven.
The trademark dilution, in connection both with well-known trademarks and trademarks with reputation is hereby debated.
The article ends with a brief comparison between well-known trademarks and trademarks with reputation.
The Study analyses the necessary changes of the Romanian legislation as a result of the recently adopted and published Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (hereinafter called the Directive 2015/2436) and of the Regulation No 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (hereinafter called the Regulation No 2015/2424).
* Prezentul articol este o traducere în limba română a studiului prezentat în limba engleză în cadrul conferinţei internaţionale „Challenges of the Knowledge Society’’, 20 - 21 mai 2016, ediţia a 10-a, Bucureşti, organizată de Universitatea Nicolae Titulescu, Fundaţia Nicolae Titulescu pentru Drept şi Relaţii Internaţionale, Universitatea Complutense din Madrid şi Universitatea Deusto din Bilbao. Studiul a fost publicat în limba engleză pe site-ul http://www.juridice.ro/446690/the-impact-of-the-european-trade-mark-law-reform-on-the-romanian-legislation.html, la data de 1 iunie 2016.
The trademark is today the sign that says most about the product or service it designates and that is why it fulfills the essential function of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Other words, the trademark distinguishes the goods of a trader of its competitors and communicates to consumers/customers that the products or services it designates are high quality, are the best, the oldest and have a great tradition among the category they belong.
The economic importance of trademarks can’t be denied. The purpose of the paper below is to analyse the role of trademark today.
Ciprian Raul Romiţan*
The creation, improvement and diversification of technologies have led to the emergence of new objects of intellectual property, including new varieties of plants, not mentioned in the international conventions concluded on this matter. It follows from the author’s analysis that plant variety patents are an object of industrial property and fall within the broad category of new technical or aesthetic creations associated to industrial products alongside inventions, utility models, designs, topographies of semiconductor products and know-how.
In the second part of the study, the author analyses the offense of counterfeiting new varieties of plants, as amended by Law no. 187/2012 implementing Law no. 286/2009 on the Criminal Code.
Conținutul acestui site este proprietatea ASDPI. Nu este permisă folosirea unor pasaje, articole sau orice parte din conținutul acestui site, fără acordul scris din partea ASDPI.