In the Cotton Flower and Öko-test cases, the CJEU has cleared its view on the essential distinctive function in individual, collective and certification marks. The Court suggests that all marks guarantee the identity of origin of goods and services. Other functions, such as that of guaranteeing the quality of that product or service, may be fulfilled, but may not be deemed as essential even for collective and certification marks. The article suggests that the Court assumes a general function of guaranteeing that all the marked goods or ser-vices are supplied under the control of a single decision-making center which is responsible (not necessarily for their quality, but more broadly) for their commercial strategies of offer: provided these strategies can be appreciated and rewarded according to the preferences of the public. For individual trademarks, the strategies of offer are essentially based on the responsibility of the quality of “finished” products and services, and are appreciated through direct purchasing experiences. For collective and certification trademarks, the strategies of offer may pertain to social values or standard quali-ties of products manufactured independently by different enterpris-es: in such cases, the strategy of offer cannot be appreciated through direct purchasing experiences (which necessarily pertain to the qualities guaranteed by the individual manufacturer), and must be “set in the stone” of a publicly accessible regulation of use. According to this view, the distinctive function of the identity of origin justifies the protection of marks as a general award for the entrepreneurial ability to satisfy the preferences of the public: an award which is not to be made necessarily dependant on the likelihood of confusion, and may confer rights on any use that takes unfair advantage of (or is detrimental to) other (not essential) functions of the mark.
Le decisioni della Corte di giustizia nei casi Fiore di cotone ed Öko-Test consentono di ricostruire la visione della Corte in ordine alla funzione distintiva essenziale del marchio e come questa funzione si caratterizzi nei marchi individuali, collettivi e di certificazione. La Corte in particolare riconduce tutte le categorie di marchi ad un’unica generale funzione essenziale di indicazione di origine. Questa funzione deve essere precisamente individuata nell’assunzione di responsabilità da parte di un unico centro decisionale in ordine a strategie commerciali di offerta del prodotto o servizio che il pubblico può premiare in base alle proprie preferenze d’acquisto. Nei marchi individuali queste strategie di offerta consistono essenzialmente nella definizione delle qualità del prodotto o servizio finito, che il pubblico può apprezzare in base alle proprie preferenze d’acquisto dirette. Nei marchi collettivi e di certificazione il pubblico non ha invece modo di apprezzare direttamente le qualità del prodotto o servizio in base alle proprie esperienze d’acquisto dirette, e deve essere portato a conoscenza delle politiche commerciali di offerta attraverso il deposito di un regolamento d’uso liberamente accessibile. Questa visione porta a considerare la presenza di un uso essenziale in funzione distintiva come un titolo giustificativo di una protezione riconosciuta dalla Corte in via generale come premio della capacità delle imprese di soddisfare le aspettative del pubblico: ma a questo titolo riconosciuta anche a fronte di approfittamenti o pregiudizi non confusori, in presenza di violazioni alle funzioni di comunicazione, investimento e pubblicità. che violano altre fu della notorietà e del valore distintivo del marchio.
La funzione distintiva dei marchi individuali, collettivi e di certificazione
Davide Sarti
2021
Abstract
In the Cotton Flower and Öko-test cases, the CJEU has cleared its view on the essential distinctive function in individual, collective and certification marks. The Court suggests that all marks guarantee the identity of origin of goods and services. Other functions, such as that of guaranteeing the quality of that product or service, may be fulfilled, but may not be deemed as essential even for collective and certification marks. The article suggests that the Court assumes a general function of guaranteeing that all the marked goods or ser-vices are supplied under the control of a single decision-making center which is responsible (not necessarily for their quality, but more broadly) for their commercial strategies of offer: provided these strategies can be appreciated and rewarded according to the preferences of the public. For individual trademarks, the strategies of offer are essentially based on the responsibility of the quality of “finished” products and services, and are appreciated through direct purchasing experiences. For collective and certification trademarks, the strategies of offer may pertain to social values or standard quali-ties of products manufactured independently by different enterpris-es: in such cases, the strategy of offer cannot be appreciated through direct purchasing experiences (which necessarily pertain to the qualities guaranteed by the individual manufacturer), and must be “set in the stone” of a publicly accessible regulation of use. According to this view, the distinctive function of the identity of origin justifies the protection of marks as a general award for the entrepreneurial ability to satisfy the preferences of the public: an award which is not to be made necessarily dependant on the likelihood of confusion, and may confer rights on any use that takes unfair advantage of (or is detrimental to) other (not essential) functions of the mark.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Sarti_2021_RDComm.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia:
Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
3.5 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
3.5 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.