Techno Specs Gadget, Samsung Galaxy, New IMEI, Octopus Box Samsung, Android Jelly Bean, Ulefone Tiger, Chinese Miracle

Kamis, 13 Oktober 2016

A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness

A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness - are you surfing on google and finding this blog Techno Specs Gadget ?.. if yes, congratulations you will get updated information about A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness we have collected a lot of information from various reliable sources to make this article, so make sure you read through to finish, please see.

Articles : A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness
full Link : A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness
Article acquired distinctiveness, Article German Federal Court of Justice, Article German trade marks, Article Survey evidence,

You can also see our article on:


A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness

The grounds for the German Federal Court of Justice's decision in the Sparkassen Group/Banco Santander dispute over the validity of Sparkassen's colour mark "red" (HSK 13) for financial services, namely retail banking, have been published last week. The 46-page judgment takes a very close look at the proper methodology of consumer surveys designed to prove acquired distinctiveness. Since no less than four surveys were submitted by the parties, two by each side, the Court had a wealth of material to work with.

 
Red.
If you are not familiar with the background of the dispute, have a look at our earlier post on the decision. Essentially, Banco Santander applied for a declaration of invalidity for lack of (acquired) distinctiveness of Sparkassen's colour mark, was unsuccessful before the German IPO, successful before the Federal Patent Court and ultimately unsuccessful before the Bundesgerichtshof, which confirmed the validity of the mark. The case led to a referral to the CJEU, which was answered in the joined cases  C‑217/13 and C‑218/13 in 2014 (see summary by Birgit Clark on IPKat).
 
Given the length of the decision, I can only highlight a few points in the following. The decision will be the reference case for the design of consumer surveys for proof of acquired distinctiveness for years to come.
 
The IPSOS survey from 2006 showed the participants a red card and opened with the following question:
Have you ever seen this colour in connection with financial institutions, or does it appear familiar in this context? Or have you never encountered this colour in connection with financial institutions?
According to the BGH, this question was suggestive, as it already created a link to a certain kind of companies, namely financial institutions. It already introduced the key question - whether the sign was understood as reference to a single entity - into the first question, which should only filter for persons that have never encountered the sign (para. 43). The proper way was to ask whether the respondents had seen the colour in connection with the claimed products.
 
A further "grave flaw" of the IPSOS survey was counting those respondents that said that they had never encountered the sign among the 66% of respondents that associated the sign with the Sparkassen Group. Those respondents who do not recall ever having seen the sign must be counted among those who do not perceive the sign as an indication of source (para. 45). The Pflüger survey submitted by Sparkassen Group in 2013 was not able to correct the deficiencies of the IPSOS survey from 2006. Surveys conducted several years after the relevant date - here the trade mark owner tried to prove acquired distinctiveness at the time of filing in 2002 - could only be considered if the market conditions were stable over longer periods of time, which was not established here (para. 50).
Too much paper...

Another flaw of the Pflüger survey - which equally applies to the IPSOS survey - was that the first question asked "Have you ever seen this colour in connection with financial services [as listed] or does it appear familiar in this context? Or have you never encountered this colour in this context?" According to the Court, the part of the question here put in italics is impermissible, as it leads respondents to consider a third answer, other than yes or no, to the question. It was fine to count those who spontaneously answered that the colour appeared familiar among those who know the sign, but "looks familiar" must not be an explicit option, as it leads to inflated figures (para. 72. In the case at hand, only about 17% of respondents spontaneously answer that the colour seems familiar, but 24% if explicitly given the option).
 
The Court addressed, but left deliberately open, the allocation of the burden of proof. According to German case law, if lack of acquired distinctiveness at the time of filing cannot be established, the validity of the mark is confirmed, so the burden of proof lies with the nullity plaintiff. According to the CJEU's judgment in cases C-217/13 and C-218/13, the opposite is true - the burden of proof for acquired distinctiveness lies with the trade mark owner (there at para. 68). The BGH did not have to decide the issue - it hints that it is unhappy with the CJEU's finding - because it found that the evidence on record established that the mark had acquired distinctiveness at the time of the Federal Patent Court's decision in 2015. Because Germany exercised the option under Article 3(3) second sentence Directive 2008/95, proof of acquired distinctiveness either at the time of filing or at the time of decision leads to validity of the mark (§ 8(3) German Trade Mark Act).
 
The respondents in the Pflüger survey answered the second question as follows:
In connection with financial services...
  • the colour refers to ("hinweisen") a specific financial institution (63%)
  • the colour refers to several financial institutions (8%)
  • the colour does not refer to any financial institution (4%)
  • cannot answer (6%)
This question was appropriate (para. 79). 62% of respondents named a company of the trade mark owner's group in answer to the third question "Do you know the name of this financial instution?".
 
Overall, the Bundesgerichtshof considered that the survey, flawed as it was, proved that more than 50% of the relevant consumers perceived the colour as a reference to a specific financial institution, i.e. as distinctive. Although the Court repeats the old "there cannot be fixed percentage values as absolute limits" (para. 92), it is pretty clear that anything above 50% is enough (para. 109).
 
Also interesting is what the Court did not address with a single word - whether it is enough that the consumers perceive the colour as a reference to a single entity, or whether it must be demonstrated that they rely on the mark when choosing the product. As you may recall, Arnold J in his second KitKat decision (IPKat post) held that "the applicant or trade mark proprietor must prove that, at the relevant date, a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons perceives the relevant goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the sign in question" (there at para. 57) and considered the survey evidence submitted by Nestlé, structurally very similar to the evidence before the Federal Court of Justice, to be inadequate to answer this question. Since the briefs are not on public record in Germany, it is unclear whether the nullity plaintiff even raised the issue. In any case, German Courts do not seem to be inclined to follow Arnold J's lead (for a critical take on the KitKat decision, see my recent piece in ABA's Landslide Magazine).



information about A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness has been completed in the discussion

hopefully the information A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness that we provide can provide benefits for you in finding the information you need

you have finished reading the article about A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness if you want to bookmark or also want to share this information to many people can use the link http://belialslut.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-close-look-at-survey-methodology-for.html ok so and thank you.

Tag : , , , ,
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+

Related : A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness

32 komentar:

  1. I am very curious about a Career in Media Education. Internet is brimming with pages on How to get into Media Education, while I want to first understand What is a Career in Media Education. It had been a while since I was researching about a Career in Media Education, when I came across: https://www.lifepage.in/career/20170422-0001/Arts/Mass Communication/Career-in-Media-Education/english

    BalasHapus
  2. After looking at a handful of the blog articles on your site, I honestly appreciate your way of blogging. I book-marked it to my bookmark webpage list and will be checking back in the near future.

    BalasHapus
  3. Thanks a ton for writing so valuable post. Here an informational post, I am also suggesting the Best Buy Water Purifier Company in Gurgaon. See Gol is the Best Company in Gurgaon, that offers Water Purifier & Air Purifier at an affordable Price in Gurgaon.

    BalasHapus
  4. This blog was very helpful, hope to see more informative blogs like this. On the other hand in case you are searching for the cheapest packers and movers in Gurgaon then visit this website, cheapest packers and movers in Gurgaon

    BalasHapus
  5. Good jobs, thanks for this articles.This is really a nice and informative, its very easy to understand for everyone. your way of explaination is amazing.
    if anyone wants packing and moving services so contact Om international packers in Gurgaon Its very informative article sir, and very easy to understand.

    BalasHapus