- iBrarian

Appendix A
Examples of British Look-alike Products
Look-alikes can be found in nearly every supermarket shelf, whereby the degree of
similarity to the respective branded products varies. Because of the strong
dependence of brand manufacturers on retailers, only very few cases were taken to
court. Nevertheless, there were some look-alike products which attracted strong
media interest and were discussed publicly. By far the most interest was attracted by
Sainsbury’s launch of its ‘Classic Cola’ on 18. April 1994, which can be seen as the
“starting signal” of the battle between branded products and look-alikes.
Fig 17: The original Coca Cola can and
Sainsbury’s Classic cola can in 1994
Fig.18: The Coca Colo logo
258
The very close resemblance of Sainsbury’s look-alike is apparent from the above
picture. The copycat used the same distinctive red and the word “Cola” written in
white, vertical letters. The style of this word is closely similar to the one used for
“Coke” on the original can (compare for example the upper part of the “C” and the
overall-appearance of the “o”).
Furthermore, the word “Classic” is written on the can using an italic script
reminiscent of the writing “Coca-Cola” (compare in particular the small letter ‘c’s
and ‘a’s). Apart from this optical convergence, the word ‘classic’ itself suggests that
258
provided by BBG
69
the product comes from or at least has a close relationship to the original CocaCola259.
National newspapers260 as well as trade press and authors in legal journals261 wrote
many articles on this product launch. Not only at the time of the launch but also in
later articles on copycat packaging, Sainsbury’s Classic Cola was frequently cited as
one of the first own-labels which imitated a famous brand really very closely262.
The case never went to court but parties agreed to a redesign of Sainsbury’s Classic
Cola cans263.
Nowadays, Sainsbury’s supermarkets still position cans of original Coca Cola and
cans of Sainsbury’s Classic Cola close to each other, however, their visual
appearances are more distinct from each other:
Fig.19: A 6 pack of Original
Fig.20: A 6 pack of Sainsbury’s
Coca Cola cans in 2003
Classic Cola cans in 2003
259
“Classic” used as an adjective means: ‘generally considered to be of the highest quality or lasting
value’ or ‘authoritative and perfect as a standard of its kind’. When used as a noun it means: ‘work of
the highest quality’ (Encarta® World English Dictionary, 1999, Bloomsbury Publishing plc.)
260
for example: The Independent on Sunday 20 February 1994
The Times 20 April 1994
The Times 11 May 1994
261
Mills (1995), Davies (1995)
262
Lee Julian, Marketing 24 April 1997
Benady David, Marketing Week 5 December 2002
Wilkinson Amanda and Charles Gemma, Marketing Week 6 February 2003
Benady David, Marketing Week 13 February 2003
263
The Times, 11. May 1994, Benady David, Marketing Week 5 December 2002.
The changes agreed to be made were the omission of the underlining and the alteration of the lettering
of the word “Classic”. Apart from that, Sainsbury substituted the distinctive Coca Cola red by another
red-tone (Davies (1995), p.107).
70
First of all, cans of both varieties are mostly offered in packs containing several (for
example six) cans, whose wrappings look clearly different from each other.
Secondly, the cans themselves now do produce different overall impressions as well:
Fig.21: An Original Coca Cola can and a
Sainsbury’s Classic Cola can in 2003
The red-tone of Sainsbury’s Classic Cola is darker than the original Coca-Cola-red,
the word “Classic” is written in clearly bigger letters than the word “cola” and in an
italic style different from the one used on the original Cola can. Moreover, the
Classic Cola can lacks the characteristic curved white stripe and depictions of
bubbles. In general, the Classic Cola can looks more austere than the original Coca
Cola can.
In subsequent years, look-alikes appeared over and over again:
•
Unilever’s spread “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” was targeted by TESCO’s
“Unbelievable” spread (1994)264
Fig.22 Univlever’s and TESCO’s spreads265
264
Benady David, Marketing Week 13 February 2003
71
•
Ever Ready alleged Sainsbury of copying its red and black blister card for
Ever Ready’s Energizer brand (1995)266.
•
Kellogg was faced with a series of copycats offered by TESCO in 1995 and
the fact that TESCO only reluctantly267 changed the design of his ownlabels268.
Fig.23 Kellogg’s and TESCO’s cereals
This case shows that copycat-products can cause considerable additional efforts to
the owner of the imitated branded product: Kellogg launched a big campaign,
including a co-ordinated TV branding campaign, large-scale direct mail drive and a
website warning consumers from cereals looking similar to Kellogg’s but being in
fact not manufactured by them269. According to the 2001 newly appointed Managing
Director Michael Carey, own-labels are a fact of life in the food business which
simply have to be competed with270.
Similarly, Lil-lets (the tampon brand owned by Smith & Nephew) was relaunched to
combat look-alike competitors. The originally blue colour of the packs, which has
become the standard for products in the sector, was replaced by silver. Concurrently,
a new press campaign in women’s magazines was launched271.
265
provided by BBG
Marketing Week 15 December 1995
267
for a while, TESCO did not show any intentions to so (Bentley Stephanie, Marketing Week 25
October 1996)
268
O’Sullivan Tom, Marketing Week 6 December 1996
269
Murphy Claire, Marketing 17 April 1997
270
Brabbs Cordelia, Marketing 18 January 2001
271
Marketing Week 8 July 1999
266
72
•
United Biscuits won a court case against Asda over the similarity of its
McVitie’s Penguin biscuits to Asda’s Puffin bars (1997)272.
Fig. 24a Penguin 14 pack273
•
Fig. 24b Puffin 14 pack274
International Distillers & Vintners threatened legal action against Asda
because of some striking similarities of the supermarkets own-label spirits to
IDV brands (1997)275. The case did not go to court.
•
Cider maker HP Bulmer considered taking legal action against rival Matthew
Clark for copying the branding of its Strongbow cider range, but did finally
not do so (1998)276.
•
Walkers Snacks found TESCO’s “Temptations” crisps packaged too similar
to Walkers’s “Sensations” (2003)277
Fig.25 Walkers’ and TESCO’s crisps278
272
United Biscuits (UK) Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [1997] R.P.C. 513 (Ch D)
As will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4, this was the first look-alike case decided in court, it
therefore attracted much interest, see for example:
Farnsworth (1997), Benjamin (1997)
Murphy Claire, Marketing 20 March 1997, Lee Julian, Marketing 27 March 1997
British Brands Group (1997), Penguin v Puffin Special, European Brands Association AIM (2000),
The Times 19 March 1997
273
provided by BBG
274
provided by BBG
275
Bentley Stephanie, Marketing Week 25 October 1996, Lee Julian, Marketing 27 March 1997
276
Benady David, Marketing Week 19 March 1998
277
Wilkinson Amanda and Charles Gemma, Marketing Week 6 February 2003, Benady David,
Marketing Week 13 February 2003
73
Appendix B
Examples of Austrian Own-label Products
Fig.26: Cream cleaners
found in Austrian supermarkets
Fig.27: Cereals found in Austrian supermarkets
The bottles of the cream cleaners are identical in respect to the yellow colouring of
their bodies and similar regarding their shapes but their labels are clearly different
and thus distinguishable.
The same applies to the boxes of the cornflakes: Each of the compared products has a
depiction of a bowl of cornflakes. However, this is the only similar feature and a
legitimate means of showing the contents of the package to potential purchasers. In
all other respects (the style the product’s name is printed and other figurative
elements, like the corncobs and the cock) are different from each other.
To provide a direct comparison between Austrian and British copycat-products, ownlabel cola cans launched by a supermarket chain in Austria are compared with the
original:
The two cans resemble each other in the red-tone,
in the (descriptive) name of the product (“cola”)
and the italic style of this word.
The own-label cans bear the word “american” in
blue letters which does not have any equivalent
on the original can. Another dissimilarity is the
stamp positioned next to the word “american”
coloured blue and yellow and having the word
“authentic american taste” printed in its blue
section.
Last but not least, the copy-cans bear the
company’s name (SPAR) and its well-known
sign. Because of these features “american cola” is distinct from the original Coca
Cola. Furthermore, when the own-label cola was launched, Spar placed emphases on
“american” and made clear that its product was different from the original Coca
Cola. Overall, appreciable efforts to avoid consumer confusion were made.
Fig.28: Cola cans found in Austrian
supermarkets
278
provided by BBG
74
Appendix C
Pertinent Statutory Provisions
AT-UWG:
§1 Handlungen gegen die guten Sitten
§1 Acts Contrary to Good Morals
Wer im geschäftlichen Verkehr zu Zwecken des
Wettbewerbes Handlungen vornimmt, die gegen
die guten Sitten verstossen, kann auf
Unterlassung in Anspruch genommen werden.
Any person who, in the course of business for
purposes of competition, commits acts which
are contrary to good morals may be enjoined
from such acts and held liable for damages.
§9 Mißbrauch von Kennzeichen eines
Unternehmens
§ 9 Misappropriation of Business Symbols279
(1)
Wer im geschäftlichen Verkehr einen
Namen, eine Firma, die besondere Bezeichnung eines
Unternehmens oder eines Druckwerkes, für das §80
des Urheberrechtsgesetzes nicht gilt, oder eine
registrierte Marke in einer Weise benützt, die geeignet
ist, Verwechslungen mit dem Namen, der Firma oder
der besonderen Bezeichnung hervorzurufen, deren sich
einen anderer befugterweise bedient, kann von diesem
auf Unterlassung in Anspruch genommen werden.
(2)
Der Benützende ist dem Verletzten zum
Ersatz des Schadens verpflichtet, wenn er wußte oder
wissen mußte, daß die mißbräuchliche Art der
Benützung
geeignet
war,
Verwechslungen
hervorzurufen.
(3)
Der
besonderen
Bezeichnung
eines
Unternehmens stehen Geschäftsabzeichen und
sonstige zur Unterscheidung des Unternehmens von
anderen Unternehmen bestimmte Einrichtungen,
insbesondere auch Ausstattungen von Waren, ihrer
Verpackung
oder
Umhüllung
und
von
Geschäftspapieren, gleich, die innerhalb beteiligter
Verkehrskreise als Kennzeichen des Unternehmens
gelten.
(4)
...
(5)
...
(1) Any person who, in the course of business,
makes use of the name, the firm name or the special
designation of an enterprise, or of a printed work to
which §80 of the Copyright Act does not apply or a
registered trade mark, in a manner likely to cause
confusion with the name, firm name or special
designation legitimately used by another person,
may be enjoined from such use by the latter person.
(2) The user shall be liable for damages to the
infringed party if he knew or should have known
that the misappropriation was likely to cause
confusion.
(3) Trade symbols and other devices used to
distinguish one enterprise from another, including
in particular the get-up of goods, of their packaging
or wrapping and of business stationery, which are
recognized by the commercial circles concerned as
designating an enterprise, shall also be deemed to
constitute special business symbols.
(4)…
(5)…
DE-MarkenG:
§ 3 Als Marke
schutzfähige Zeichen
§3 Signs protectible
as trademarks
(1)
Als
Marke
können
alle
Zeichen,
insbesondere Wörter einschließlich Personennamen,
Abbildungen, Buchstaben, Zahlen, Hörzeichen,
dreidimensionale Gestaltungen einschließlich der
Form einer Ware oder ihrer Verpackung sowie
sonstige Aufmachungen einschließlich Farben und
Farbzusammenstellungen geschützt werden, die
geeignet sind, Waren oder Dienstleistungen eines
Unternehmens von denjenigen anderer Unternehmen
zu unterscheiden.
(2)...
(emphasis added)
(1)
Any signs, which are capable of
distinguishing the goods or services of one
undertaking from those of other undertakings, in
particular words including personal names, designs,
letters, numerals, audio-signs, three-dimensional
shapes including the shape of goods or their
packaging as well as other get-ups including
colours and colour combinations may be protected
as trademarks.
(2)
…
(emphasis added)
279
translation taken from: Gröhs, Polak (1997)
75
§4 Creation of the rights conferred by a
trademark
§4 Entstehung des Markenschutzes
Der Markenschutz entsteht
Rights conferred by a trademark are created
1.
durch die Eintragung eines Zeichens als
Marke in das vom Patentamt geführte Register
2.
durch die Benutzung eines Zeichens im
geschäftlichen Verkehr, soweit das Zeichen innerhalb
beteiligter Verkehrskreise als Marke Verkehrsgeltung
erworben hat, oder
durch die im Sinne des Artikels 6bis der Pariser
Verbandsübereinkunft zum Schutz des gewerblichen
Eigentums (Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft) notorische
Bekanntheit der Marke.
1.
by registration of a sign as a trademark in
the register maintained by the patent office
2.
by use of the sign in business to such an
extent that it enjoys reputation as a trademark with
the sections of the public concerned
by notoriety in the sense of article 6bis of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
(Paris Convention).
§14 Ausschließliches Recht des Inhabers einer
Marke; Unterlassungsanspruch;
Schadenersatzanspruch
§14 Exclusive right of a proprietor of a
trademark;
Right to injunctions; Right to claim damages
(1)
Obtaining trade mark rights according
to §4 confers the proprietor of the trade mark
an exclusive right.
(2)
It is forbidden for third parties to
commit the following acts without the
proprietor’s consent
1.
to use a sign which is identical with
the trade mark in relation to goods or
services identical to those the trademark is
protected for,
2.
to use a sign where because this
sign is identical with or similar to the
trademark and is used in relation to goods
or services identical with or similar to those
the trade mark is protected for there exists a
likelihood of confusion on the public,
which includes the likelihood of association
with the trade mark or
3.
to use a sign which is identical with
or similar to the trademark in relation to
goods or services which are not similar to
those the trademark is protected for where
the trade mark has a reputation in Germany
and the use of the sign, being without due
cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is
detrimental to, the distinctive character or
the repute of the trademark.
(1)
Der Erwerb des Markenschutzes nach § 4
gewährt dem Inhaber der Marke ein
ausschließliches Recht.
(2)
Dritten ist es untersagt, ohne Zustimmung
des Inhabers der Marke im geschäftlichen
Verkehr
1.
ein mit der Marke identisches Zeichen für
Waren oder Dienstleistungen zu benutzen,
die mit denjenigen identisch sind, für die sie
Schutz genießt,
2.
ein Zeichen zu benutzen, wenn wegen der
Identität oder Ähnlichkeit des Zeichens mit
der Marke und der Identität oder Ähnlichkeit
der durch die Marke und das Zeichen
erfaßten Waren oder Dienstleistungen für
das
Publikum
die
Gefahr
von
Verwechslungen besteht, einschließlich der
Gefahr, daß das Zeichen mit der Marke
gedanklich in Verbindung gebracht wird,
oder
3.
ein mit der Marke identisches Zeichen
oder ein ähnliches Zeichen für Waren oder
Dienstleistungen zu benutzen, die nicht
denen ähnlich sind, für die die Marke Schutz
genießt, wenn es sich bei der Marke um eine
im Inland bekannte Marke handelt und die
Benutzung
des
Zeichens
die
Unterscheidungskraft
oder
die
Wertschätzung der bekannten Marke ohne
rechtfertigenden Grund in unlauterer Weise
ausnutzt oder beeinträchtigt.
76
PC:
Article 10bis
[Unfair Competition]
(1) The countries of the Union are bound to assure to nationals of such
countries effective protection against unfair competition.
(2) Any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or
commercial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition.
(3) The following in particular shall be prohibited:
1. all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means
whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or
commercial activities, of a competitor;
2. false allegations in the course of trade of such a nature as to
discredit the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or
commercial activities, of a competitor;
3. indications or allegations the use of which in the course of trade
is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing
process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose, or
the quantity, of the goods.
TRIPS:
Article 2
Intellectual Property Conventions
1.
2.
In respect of Parts II, III and IV of this Agreement, Members
shall comply with Articles 1 through 12, and Article 19, of the
Paris Convention (1967).
Nothing in Parts I to IV of this Agreement shall derogate from
existing obligations that Members may have to each other
under the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, the Rome
Convention and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect
of Integrated Circuits.
WIPO’s Model Provisions on Protection against Unfair Competition:
Article 2 Causing Confusion with Respect to Another’s
Enterprise or Its Activities
(1) [General Principle] Any act or practice, in the course
of industrial or commercial activities, that causes, or is likely to
cause, confusion with respect to another’s enterprise or its
activities, in particular, the products or services offered by such
enterprise, shall constitute an act of unfair competition.
(2)
[Examples of Confusion] Confusion may, in
particular, be caused with respect to
(i) a trademark, whether registered or not;
(ii) a trade name;
(iii) a business identifier other than a trademark or trade name;
(iv) the appearance of a product;
(v) the presentation of products or services;
(vi) a celebrity or a well-known fictional character.
77
Bibliography
Textbooks:
Bainbridge, David I, 2002, Intellectual Property, 5th edition, Pearson Education Limited
Bennett, Peter, Dictionary of Marketing Terms, 1988, American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL
Bently, Lionel and Sherman, Brad, 2001, Intellectual Property Law, 2nd edition, Oxford
University Press
Cornish, William Rodolph, 1999, Intellectual Property : Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks
and Allied Rights, 4th edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London
Franzen, Giep and Bouwman, Margot, 2001, The Mental World of Brands, World
Advertising Research Center
Fezer, Karl-Heinz, 2001, Beck'sche Kurzkommentare, Bd.13B, Markenrecht, 3rd edition,
Verlag C.H. Beck
Fitz, Gamerith, 2000, Unlauterer Wettbewerb und Kartelle, 3rd edition, Verlag Orac, Wien
Gröhs, Bernhard and Polak Peter, Austrian Competition Law, 1997, 3rd edition, Manz’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung Wien
Hankinson, Graham and Cowking, Philippa, Branding in Action – Cases and strategies for
profitable brand management, 1993, McGraw-Hill Marketing for Professionals Series
Hefermehl, Wolfgang and Baumbach, Adolf, 2001, Beck'sche Kurzkommentare, Bd.13B,
Markenrecht, Verlag C.H. Beck
Kamperman Sander, Anselm, 1997, Unfair Competition Law – The Protection of Intellectual
and Industrial Creativity, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Kotler, Philip; Armstrong, Gary; Saunders, John; Wong, Veronica, 2001, Principles of
Marketing, 3rd European edition, Pearson Education Limited
Koppensteiner Hans-Georg, 1997, Österreichisches und Europaeisches Wettbewerbsrecht,
3rd edition, Verlag Orac, Wien
Rechberger Walter and Simotta Daphne-Ariane, 2003, Grundriß des österreichischen
Zivilprozesses, 6th edition, Manz’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Wien
Schanda Reinhard, 1999, Markenschutzgesetz idF Markenrechtsnovelle 1999, Verlag Orac,
Wien
Journals:
Morris, D., 1971, The Strategy of own brands, European Journal of Marketing, 12 (2)
Mills, Belinda, 1995, Own Label Products and the “Lookalike” Phenomenon: A Lack of
Trade Dress and Unfair Competition Protection, European Intellectual Property Review,
17(3), p. 116-132
78
De Chernatony, L., 1988, The Fallacy of Generics in the UK, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 6 (2)
Kapferer, Jean-Noel, 1995, Stealing Brand equity: measuring perceptual confusion between
national brands and ‘copycat’ own-label products, Marketing and Research Today, Vol. 23,
Issue 2 (May), pp.96-103
Kapferer, Jean-Noel, 1995, Brand Confusion: Empirical Study of a Legal Concept,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12, Issue 6 (September), pp.551-568
Farnsworth, Dominic, 1997, Trade Marks and passing off: ‘Copycat Packaging’,
Entertainment Law Review, 8(4), E69
Benjamin, John M., 1997, Penguin v. Puffin, European Intellectual Property Review, 19(8),
484-487
Davies, Isabel, 1995, Look-alikes: Fair or unfair competition?, The Journal of Brand
Management, Vol.3 No.4, 104-120
Sack Rolf, 1995, Sonderschutz bekannter Marken GRUR (Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und
Urheberrecht) 1995, p. 81
Sack Rolf, 1996, Nachahmen im Wettbewerb, ZHR (Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsund Wirtschaftsrecht), 160, p.493-508
O Sullivan, Tom, 1994, The price of persuasion, Management Today, October 1994, p.80
Binns, Richard and Everitt, Charlie, 2000, Intellectual Property – The U.K. Copyright and
Trade Marks Bill, EIPR, 22(6), N86-88
Schulz, Charlotte, 2003, Registering Colour Trade Marks in the European Union, EIPR,
25(2), 55-67
Holah, M., 2000, The boundaries of trademark protection in the United Kingdom,
Trademark World 35
Grabrucker, M., 2000, Offene Rechtsfragen zur Praxis der abstrakten Farbmarke", WRP,
1331
Grabrucker, M., 2001, Aus der Rechtsprechung des Bundespatentsgerichts im Jahre 2000,
GRUR 373
Helbling, Thomas, 1997, Shapes as Trade Marks? The Struggle to Register ThreeDimensional Signs: A Comparative Study of United Kingdom and Swiss Law, IPQ, 4, 413449
Case comment on Beecham Group Plc v Sainsbury (J) Plc (Unreported), 1987, Passing off:
Get up –Shape of Jar – Interlocutary Injunctions Refused, EIPR, 9(11), D-234
Adams, John N., 1992, Unfair Competition: Why a need is unmet, EIPR, 14(8), 259-261
Disloyalty becomes the norm, Marketing 21 June 2001, p. 24
79
Bentley Stephanie, 1996, Tesco under pressure over own-label cereal…, Marketing Week 25
October 1996, p.7
O’Sullivan Tom, 1996, Labour puts copycat policy on the agenda, Marketing Week 6
December 1996, p19
Murphy Claire, 1997, Kellogg targets own-label rivals, Marketing Week 17 April 1997, p.1
Brabbs Cordelia, 2001, Outside, looking up Michael Carey * Managing director * Kellogg
UK and Ireland, Marketing Week 18 January 2001
Lil-lets revamps packaging design to fight copycat rivals, Marketing Week 8 July 1999, p.6
Lee Julian, 1997, Sainsbury ends copycat battle, Marketing Week 24 April 1997, p.1
Benady David, 2002, Copycat Packaging, Marketing Week 5 December 2002, p.31
Wilkinson Amanda and Charles Gemma, 2003, Walkers fury at Tesco ‘copycat’, Marketing
Week 6 February 2003, p.5
Benady David, 2003, Crunch Time for Copycats, Marketing Week 13 February 2003, p.24
Ever Ready test IDG copycat rules with first case against Sainsbury’s, Marketing Week 15
December 1995, p.8
Murphy Claire, 1997, Penguin forces Asda redesign, Marketing 20 March 1997, p.1
Lee Julian, 1997, Action fails to match spirit of lookalike law, Marketing 27 March 1997,
p.19
Benady David, 1998, Matthew Clark in copycat legal row, Marketing Week 19 March 1998,
p.7
Brochures:
European Brands Association AIM, 1996, Look-alikes – Look-out! A practical guide to stop
look-alikes, European Brands Association AIM
European Brands Association AIM, 2000, Look-alikes are not funny Here’s how to beat
them, European Brands Association AIM
British Brands Group, Look-alikes: Commercial Piracy
British Brands Group, 1997, Penguin v Puffin Special, British Brands The Newsletter of the
British Brands Group, March 1997 (Special Issue)
Study papers:
Dobson, Paul, 1998, The Competition Effects of Look-alike Products, University of
Nottingham, School of Management and Finance, discussion paper 1998.VIII
Consumers’ Association, 1998, Policy Paper: Confusion in the supermarket?, Consumers’
Association November 1998
80
Consumers’ Association, 1995, Public Interest onw-brands Lookalikes, Which?, March
1995, p.30,31
Taylor Nelson AGB plc., 1998, Study of Lookalikes, Summary Report, Taylor Nelson AGB
plc.
Laaksonen, Harri, 1994, Own Brands in Food Retailing Across Europe, Templeton College
of Oxford University
London Economics, 1997, Competition in Retailing, Research Paper 13, Office of Fair
Trading, London
British Brands Group, 1997, A Prohibition Approach to Anti-competitive Agreements and
Abuse of Dominant Position – A Response from The British Brands Group
Passing off: Get up –Shape of Jar – Interlocutary Injunctions Refused, EIPR (1987), 9(11),
D-234
Newspapers:
The Times, 20 April 1994, Brand of Logic
The Times, 20 April 1994, ‘The brand is dead… but how long will own-label last?’
The Grocer, 10. September 1994
The Independent on Sunday 20 February 1994, Superstores stalk the superbrands
The Times 11 May 1994, Cola war hits Coke
The Times 19 March 1997, P-p-pass off a Penguin
Webpages:
British Brands Group, 2002, About the British Brands Group [online], available from:
http://www.britishbrandsgroup.org.uk/about.html [accessed: April 22nd, 2003]
The Patent Office, 2003, Applying to Register a Trademark, [online]
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/info/applying.pdf [accessed: 6. June 2003])
OHIM, 2003, Annual Report 2002, [online] http://oami.eu.int/en/office/diff/pdf/ar2002.pdf
[accessed: 6. June 2003])
Cases (legal decisions): UK
W. & G. Du Cros’ Applications [1913] AC 624,635
Eurolamb Trade Mark [1997] RPC 279.
HP Bulmer v J Bollinger SA [1978] RPC 79
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217
Cadbury Schweppes v. Pub Squash Co. [1981] RPC 429
Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd and Another v. Wards Mobility Services Ltd. [1995] FSR 169
Spalding v. Gamage [1915] 32 RPC 273
Perry v. Truefitt (1842) 49 ER 749
Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. [1979] AC 731
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All ER 873
Reddaway v. Banham [1896] A.C. 199
County Sound plc v Ocean Sound plc [1991] FSR 367
McCain International Ltd v. Country Fair Foods Ltd [1981] RPC 69
My Kinda Town Ltd. v Soll [1983] RPC 407
Bristol Conservatories v. Conservatories Custom Built [1989] R.P.C. 455
Taittinger SA v. Allbev Ltd [1993] F.S.R. 641
Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v. Cadbury Ltd [1998] R.P.C. 117
Wagamama Ltd. v. City Centre Restaurants Ltd. [1995] F.S.R. 713
Harrods v. Harrodian School [1996] RPC 697
81
HFC Bank v Midland Bank plc [2000] FSR 176
Clark v. Associated Newspapers [1998] RPC 261
Lego v Lemelstrich [1983] FSR 155
Neutrogena Corporation v. Golden [1996] RPC 473
Baume & Co Ltd v AH Moore Ltd [1958] RPC 226
Gillette UK Ltd. V Edenwest Ltd [1994] RPC 279
Bach Flower Remedies v Healing Herbs [2000] RPC 513
British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281
CODAS Trade Mark [2001] RPC 240
Stannard v Reay [1967] RPC 589
Imperial Group plc & Another v. Philip Morris Limited & Another [1984] RPC 293
Beecham Group plc & Another v J Sainsbury plc (1987) (unreported)
British Legion v. British Legion Club (Street) (1931) 63 RPC 555
Ewing v. Buttercup Margarine Co. Ltd. (1917) RPC 232
United Biscuits (UK) Ltd. V. Burtons Biscuits Ltd. [1992] FSR 14
Scott Ltd. v. Nice-Pak Products Ltd. [1989] FSR 100
United Biscuits (UK) v Asda Stores Ltd [1997] RPC 513 Ch D
Provident Financial Plc and Another v. Halifax Building Society [1994] FSR 81
British Broadcasting Corp v. Talbot Motor Co Ltd [1981] FSR 228
Dawnay Day & Co. Limited v. Cantor Fitzgerald International [2000] RPC 669
Ty Nant [1999] R.P.C. 292
BP Amoco Plc v John Kelly Ltd [2002] F.S.R. 5
Dualit [1999] R.P.C. 304 (TM Registry) [1999] R.P.C. 890 (Ch.D)
Maasland's Application [2000] R.P.C. 893 (G. Hobbs)
In S. M. Jaleel & Co. Ltd's Trade Mark Application [2000] R.P.C. 471
Coca Cola Trade Marks [1986] R.P.C. 421
Cases (legal decisions): Austria
OGH ÖBl 1976, 97 – Konkursverkauf I
OGH ÖBl 1979, 22 –Mietervereinigung
OGH ÖBl 1976, 151 Lärmschutzeinrichtungen
OGH ÖBl 1983, 9 – Krankenhausambulanz
OGH ÖBl 1976, 109 – Autowaschen gratis
OGH ÖBl 1995, 219 – Klasse statt Masse
OGH ÖBl 1994, 111 – Götz-Zitat
OGH ÖBl 1994, 217 – Satellitenprogramm
OGH ÖBl 1991, 237 – Ski-Kindergarten
OGH ÖBl 1983, 9 – Krankenhausambulanz
OGH ÖBl 1979, 78 Fiorella/Figurella (OGH 17. 10. 1978, 4 Ob 363/78)
OGH ÖBl 1995, 126 - Telecom
OGH ÖBl 1993, 89 – “for you”
OGH ÖBl 1991, 32 – EXPO-Technik
OGH ÖBl 1966, 143
OGH ÖBl 1993, 92 – Pickfein
OGH ÖBl 1980, 68 - Jagdwurstkonserven
OGH ÖBl 1992, 163 Stadtfernsehen
OGH ÖBl 1979, 45 Texhages/Texmoden
OGH ÖBl 1976, 45 Kosmos-Reklame
OGH ÖBl 1994, 227 Ritter/Knight (OGH 8. 3. 1994, 4 Ob 13/94)
OGH ÖBl 1975, 114 Pregnex/Pregtest (OGH 1. 10. 1974, 4 Ob 334/74)
OGH ÖBl 1996, 246 - LEUMIN/LEIMIN (OGH 26. 2. 1996, 4 Ob 7/96)
OGH ÖBl 1995, 71 – ALFA (OGH 14. 6. 1994, 4 Ob 61/94)
OGH ecolex 1996, 870 CA-Ferntouristik (OGH 25. 6. 1996, 4 Ob 2138/96)
OGH ÖBl. 1995, 172 – ENTEC (OGH 19. 12. 1994, 4 Ob 142/94)
OGH ÖBl. 1993, 156 Loctite (OGH 27. 7. 1993, 4 Ob 62, 63/93)
82
OGH ÖBl 1991, 93 – “Quattro/Quadra”
OGH ÖBl 1988, 23 - HOGAT/HOGAST (OGH 5. 5. 1987, 4 Ob 401/86)
OGH ÖBl 1974, 35 – ARAL-Blau II (OGH 20.11.1973, 4 Ob 335/73)
OGH ÖBl 1959, 115 – Milka-Lila (OGH 1. 9. 59, 4 Ob 323/59)
OGH ÖBl 1997, 176 – Manz Rot (OGH 25. 2. 1997, 4Ob28/97i)
ÖBl 1991, 209 - 7-Früchte-Müsli-Riegel (OGH 26. 2. 1991, 4 Ob 14/91)
OGH 18. 9. 1925 SZ 7/280
OGH ÖBl 1965, 95 – Mundspray hazalon (OGH 6. 4. 1965 4 Ob 316/65)
ÖBl 1971, 101 – Telefritz (OGH 23. 3. 1971, 4 Ob 311/71)
OGH ÖBl 1988, 10 – Profilleisten (OGH 10. 3. 1987, 4 Ob 367/86)
OGH ÖBl 1988, 41 – Easy Rider (OGH 15. 12. 1987, 4 Ob 343/86)
OGH ÖBl 1989, 39 – Klimt-Wandleuchte (OGH 9. 2. 1988, 4 Ob 413/87)
OGH ÖBl 1992, 19 – Verpackungs-Etiketten (OGH 25. 2. 1992, 4 Ob 5/92)
OGH ÖBl 1998, 17 – Schokobananen (OGH 13. 5. 1997, 4 Ob 117/97b)
OGH 27. 4. 1999 4Ob109/99d
OGH ÖBl 2001, 124 – Dämmplatten (OGH 19. 12. 2000, 4 Ob 257/00y)
OGH ÖBl 2002, 20 – Blaues Rohr (OGH 12. 6. 2001, 4 Ob 126/01k)
OGH ÖBl 1995, 116 – Schuldrucksorten (OGH 22. 11. 1994, 4 Ob 78/94)
OGH ÖBl 1994, 13 – Schlechtes Geschäft (OGH 11. 1. 1994, 4 Ob 7/94)
OGH ÖBl 1993, 212 – Ringe (OGH 27. 7. 1993, 4 Ob 91/93)
OGH ÖBl 1973, 84 – Maresi-Etiketten-Wetten (OGH 15. 5. 1973, 4 Ob 314/73)
OGH ÖBl 1971, 48 – X-Millionenspiel (OGH 1. 12. 1970, 4 Ob 357/70)
OGH ÖBl 2003, 10 - BOSS-Zigaretten IV (OGH 15. 10. 2002, 4 Ob 174/02w)
PBl 1993, 159 (BA 6. 8. 1992, Bm 5/91)
PBl 1989,11 (OPM 31. 8. 1988, Om 1/87)
Cases (legal decisions): Germany
BGH GRUR 1982, 672 – Aufmachung von Qualitätsseifen”
BGH GRUR 1969, 190 – „hazalon“
BGH GRUR 1968, 371 - Maggi
BGHZ 11, 129 – Zählkassetten
BGHZ 35, 341 – Buntstreifensatin I
RG MuW 1931, 91
BGH GRUR 1960, 130 – Sunpearl II
BGH GRUR 1969, 681 - Kochendwassergerät
BGHZ 35, 341 – Buntstreifensatin I
BGH GRUR 1970, 141 – Europharma
BGH GRUR 1975, 550 – Drahtbewehrter Gummischlauch
BGH GRUR 1956, 227 – Reisebüro
BGH GRUR 1971, 591 – Sabotage
BGH GRUR 1997, 438 – Handtuchspender
BGH GRUR 2000, 233 – RAUSCH/ELFI RAUCH
BGH GRUR 2000, 608 – ARD-1
RG GRUR 1931, 403 – Terranova/Terrameyer
BGH GRUR 1962, 522 – Ribana
BGHZ 139, 340 – Lions
BGH GRUR 1999, 990 – Schlüssel
BGH GRUR 1951, 159 – Störche
BGH GRUR 1974, 30 - Erotex
BGH GRUR 1998, 924 - salvent/Salventol
BGH GRUR 1999, 735 – MONOFLAM/POLYFLAM
BGH GRUR 1992, 110 –dipa/dib
RG GRUR 1936, 621 – Elektrozeit
BpatG Mitt 1970, 232 – Elmetra/Eltro
OLG Karlsruhe GRUR 1962, 587 – Kaloderma-Ausstattung
83
BGH GRUR 2001, 443 – Viennetta
BGH GRUR 1957, 231 – Pertussin I
BGH GRUR 57, 561 – REI-Chemie
BGH GRUR 1957, 369 –Rosa-Weiß-Packung
BGH GRUR 1962, 299 – form-strip
BGH GRUR 2001, 56 – Likörflasche
BpatG Jahresbericht 1997, p.70
BpatGE 39, 132 – weiße Kokosflasche
BpatG GRUR 1998, 581 – blaue Vierkantflasche
Cases (legal decisions): ECJ and OHIM
Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Klijsen Handel BV Case C-342/97 [1999]
E.T.M.R. 690
Sabel BV v. Puma AG Case C- 251/95 [1998] R.P.C. 199
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Inc. Case C-39/97 [1999] R.P.C. 117
Gut Springenheide GmbH and Another v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt--AMT für
Lebensmittelüberwachung and Another Case C-210/96 [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 1383
Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau Case C-104/01 [2003] ECR
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2002] 2 C.M.L.R.
52
OHIM R 139/1999 – Granini-Flasche
OHIM R 205/1998-2– Brunneneinheitsflasche
OHIM R 52/99-1 – Berenthen-Flasche
Statues, EU-Regulation and international agreements:
(British) Trade Marks Act 1994, referred to as: TMA
(Österreichisches) Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG) (=(Austrian) Unfair
Competition Act), referred to as AT-UWG
(Österreichisches) Markenschutzgesetz 1970 idgF (=(Austrian) Trade Mark Act 1970 as
amended), referred to as: AT-MarkenG
(Deutsches) Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb vom 7. Juni 1909 idgF (=(German)
Unfair Competition Act as amended), referred to as DE-UWG
(Deutsches) Gesetz über den Schutz von Marken und sonstigen Kennzeichen (Markengesetz
– MarkenG) vom 25. Oktober 1994 (Act on the Protection of Trademarks and other Business
Symbols) referred to as DE-MarkenG
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
Member States relating to trade marks, referred to as: First Council Directive
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883 as amended, referred to as
PC
Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994, referred to as
TRIPS
84