'Faculty of Law Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek'
Doi
Abstract
Rad pruža sveobuhvatnu analizu pravila prema kojem kao žig nije moguće registrirati oblik ili drugo obilježje proizvoda koje značajno determinira vrijednost proizvoda. Riječ je o pravilu koje je u sustavu žigovnog prava eU-a kodificirano kao članak 4 (1) (e) (iii) Direktive (eU) 2015/2436 o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o žigovima, odnosno kao članak 7 (1) (e) (iii) Uredbe (eU)
2017/1001 o žigu eU-a.
Cilj rada je trojak: a) definirati ratio legis odredbe prema kojoj kao žig nije moguće registrirati oblik ili drugo obilježje proizvoda koje značajno utječe na vrijednost proizvoda; b) ponuditi temeljitu analizu relevantne sudske prakse s područja eU-a te c) na temelju provedene analize ocijeniti treba li ovo pravilo pro futuro opstati u neizmijenjenu obliku ili bi svrsishodnije bilo ukinuti ga, odnosno izmijeniti. imajući u vidu svrhu analiziranog pravila (s jedne strane) te probleme do kojih dolazi pri njegovoj primjeni u praksi (s druge strane), u zaključku rada nude se smjernice u skladu s kojima bi navedeno pravilo trebalo tumačiti i primjenjivati u praksi.The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of “substantial value rule” as an absolute ground for trademark refusal. Originating from the US “aesthetic functionality doctrine”, the rule took a specific form in the EU. There it was incorporated in Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks – Article 4 (1) (e) (iii), as well as in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark - Article 7 (1) (e) (iii). Pursuant to “substantial value rule”, signs consisting exclusively of the shape that gives substantial value to the goods are not to be registered as trademarks or, if registered, are liable to be declared invalid. The objective of the paper is therefore threefold: a) to define the rationale of “substantial value rule”; b) to analyze relevant case law; c) to conclude whether a respective rule shall be abolished (providing its purpose may be achieved by other legal instruments without negative side-effects) or kept in the EU trademark law system. Bearing in mind the rationale of “substantial value rule” (on the one hand) and numerous problems that arise whenever “substantial value rule” is applied in practice (on the other hand) the paper provides guidelines for its appropriate interpretation
