Eduard Sorin Pavel**
Under Law 84/1998, a trademark may be invalidated due to the existence of relative or absolute grounds for refusal.
While relative grounds for refusal protect a particular interest (the conflict of the trademark with prior rights owned by third parties), absolute grounds for refusal protect a general interest such as legal certainty, compliance of Law 84/1998 with EU Regulations, international conventions to which Romania is party and with Romanian Constitution.
For both absolute and relative grounds for refusal, Law 84/1998 provides a statutory limitation period within which a trademark can be invalidated after registration. This statutory limitation period expires after five years since the registration of the trademark. However, a trademark filed with bad faith is not subject to this statutory limitation and can be invalidated anytime throughout its period of protection.
While the prescribed statutory limitation period is fully justified for invalidation of trademarks due to relative grounds for refusal (statutory limitation operates here as penalty applied to trademark's owner, who was not diligent enough to exercise their trademark rights against third party who registered the later infringing sign), it is not justified for invalidation proceedings based on absolute grounds, in which case the statutory limitation is liable to bring Law 84/1998 in conflict with EU law and the Romanian Constitution.
*Articolul a mai fost publicat pe www.juridice.ro în data de 20 octombrie 2016.
**Avocat senior Schoenherr si Asociatii SCA.
Monica Florina Boţa Moisin*
Eliza Trană Pîslaru
“IA Law Working Group” is a joint initiative of “La Blouse Roumaine – IA” Association and the “European Law Students’ Association – ELSA Bucharest”. Interested in the legal protection of traditional cultural expressions and regulation of commerce with cultural goods, the students involved in this project, together with their coordinator, are advocating for the national configuration of a new field of law – cultural intellectual property.
This introductory article offers a non limitative outlook of the national and international applicable legislation as well as the cultural movement initiative developed in social media: “La Blouse Roumaine”.
Starting with the Paris Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, legislation on the protection of traditional cultural expressions and expressions of folklore is ever more present in jurisdictions worldwide. Whilst countries like India, Portugal and Zambia offer legal solutions against counterfeiting of cultural goods and regulate commerce with such products, Romanian national legislation has no visible impact. The Romanian Blouse as a cultural good, as well as other elements that fall under the same category, are considered immaterial patrimony under Romanian law, unprotectable through any mechanism of intellectual property.
Opposing this view, the “IA Law Working Group” supports the notion of cultural intellectual property as a self standing field of law that creates a nurturing environment for traditional cultural expressions and cultural goods and services. Production of and commerce with cultural goods, outside the traditional community or private use, should be subject to regulation, and authenticity of these cultural goods should be certified by means of the cultural trademark – a sui generis mechanism of legal protection specific to cultural intellectual property.
**Ceilalţi patru coautori sunt studenţi la Facultatea de drept din cadrul Universităţii Bucureşti.
George Mihai Irimescu*
The purpose of this article is to analyse the protection of nontraditional trademarks according to the Romanian and European legislation and practice.
Starting from the mere trademark definition, the registrability of each type of nontraditional trademark is assessed, taking into consideration the legal provisions and some of the most relevant decisions issued by the Romaninan PTO or at Europeean level.
The three main elements to be considered are the following: firstly, the existing legal provisions with respect to that certain type of trademark, making short reference to the provisions in force before the republication of the Romaian Trademarks Law.
A second point is that is analysed is the condition that a trademark should be rerpresented graphically, which represents a serious obstancle against the registration of certain nontraditional trademarks. Moreover, the changes brought by the new Trademarks Directive will bring a fresh perspective on this condition.
The distinctive character of the trademark is another point thoroughly examined in connenction to various tyeps of nontraditional trademarks.
Finally, short remarks with respect to the possible protection of nontraditional trademarks as unregistered trademarks are made.
Recent developments in the DNS system, respectively release of the new gTLD’s, generated discussion concerning the level of analysis that should be conducted of the gTLD in case of the first element of the Policy for a Claimant to succeed in a UDRP claim. Initially the Panels analysed the gTLD and determined that it increases the confusing similarity on the basis that nothing in the wording of the Policy prevents such a finding. However, recent decisions and discussions between the OMPI UDRP panellists lead to a different solution, that the gTLD should not be analysed under the first element which is only a standing requirement and where the trademark should be recognised within the domain name; rather, the gTLD should be better analysed within the second or the third elements of the Policy as the case.
*Conferenţiar universitar dr. la Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti. Arbitru al Curţii de Arbitraj Comercial Internaţional de pe lângă Camera de Comerţ şi Industrie a României. Membră a listei de arbitri în litigii de proprietate intelectuală la Centrul de Arbitraj şi Mediere de pe lângă Organizaţia Mondială a Proprietăţii Intelectuale.
**Avocat partener în cadrul „Leaua & Asociaţii”, membră a listei de arbitri în procedura de soluţionare a litigiilor privind numele de domeniu de internet la Centrul de Arbitraj şi Mediere de pe lângă Organizaţia Mondială a Proprietăţii Intelectuale. Arbitru al Curţii de Arbitraj Comercial Internaţional de pe lângă Camera de Comerţ şi Industrie a României.
Nicoleta Rodica Dominte**
The unitary patent and the Unitary Patent Court are the two main columns of the new European patent system. This article is a small radiography of the arguments and counterarguments in order to have an exploratory perspective of (re)dimensioning the European patent system. We intend to map the role of the unitary patent, as a regional patent, and to identify the correct interpretation of articles 5 and 7 from Regulation (EU) no. 1257/2012 on implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection.
*Articolul are la bază lucrarea „Curtea Unică în materia Brevetelor şi Brevetul Unitar în agora spaţiului juridic european” prezentată în cadrul Conferinţei „Valori juridice, principii şi interpretări în dreptul european. Un Argus cu un singur ochi?”, organizată de Centru Robertianum de Drept Privat, Facultatea de Drept, Universitatea „Al.I. Cuza” Iaşi şi Asociaţia Română de Drept şi Afaceri Europene , 23 octombrie 2015, Iaşi.