|
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE |
Sandra Lee discusses the issue of the registration of shape marks under the Trade Marks Ordinance in light of a recent case interpreting this issue
Although shape marks are not specifically included in the definition of a 'mark' under the current Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap 43; the TMO), the Registrar of Trade Marks (the Registrar) has long been accepting such applications provided they satisfy the registration requirements. That said, s 12(3) of the TMO expressly excludes natural, functional and ornamental shape marks. What, then, is the test and why such a distinction? What is the Registrar's current practice? This article looks into these issues and discusses the relevant case law.
The Background
Section 12(3) of the TMO provides that:
A sign shall not be registered as a trade mark relating to goods if it consists exclusively of -
(a) the shape that results from the nature of the goods themselves;
(b) the shape of goods that is necessary to obtain a technical result; or
(c) the shape that gives substantial value to the goods.
The new Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap 559), expected to come into operation in early 2003, contains the same provision in s 11(3). The provision mirrors s 3(2) of the UK Trade Marks Act (the 1994 Act), which has implemented art 3(1)(e) of the First Council Directive (89/ 104/EEC, 21 December 1988) (the Council Directive). It should be noted, however, that there was no equivalent provision under the repealed UK Trade Marks Act 1938 (the 1938 Act).
As far as the case law is concerned, the case of Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd must be considered.
The Philips-Remington Battle
Philips and Remington are rivals in the electric shavers business worldwide. In the UK, Philips has since 1985 secured a registration for the overhead view of its threeheaded shaver in Class 8 for electric shavers (the Philips Trademark). In 1995, Remington began launching in the UK its three-headed rotary shaver, sparking off a battle with Philips.
Philips sued Remington for trademark infringement under the 1994 Act. Not only did Remington deny any infringement, they counterclaimed that the Philips' registration was invalid, inter alia, on the grounds that it:
(i) Was not a sign capable of distinguishing goods of one undertaking from those of another;
(ii) Was devoid of any distinctive character; and
(iii) Consisted exclusively of the shape which resulted from the nature of the goods themselves, or the shape which was necessary to achieve a technical result, or the shape which gave substantial value to the goods.
It should be added that the Philips Trademark was originally registered under the 1938 Act. By virtue of Schedule 3 to the 1994 Act, which repealed the 1938 Act, the registration has acquired the same effect as if it had been registered under the 1994 Act. As the alleged infringing act occurred in 1995, the validity issues were therefore considered under the 1994 Act.
In the Patents Court, [1998] RPC 283, Mr Justice Jacobs held in favour of Remington and declared the Philips Trademark invalid. Although the mark satisfied the requirement of a 'sign' within the meaning of the 1994 Act, the learned judge decided that the mark was incapable of distinguishing the goods of Philips from those of other traders in the course of business and that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character to qualify for registration.
Fearing that the ruling on lack of distinctiveness might be wrong, the learned judge went on to determine whether the mark was invalid under one or more of the three specified functionality exclusions under s 3(2) of the 1994 Act.
The Shape Which Results from the Nature of the Goods Themselves
Considering whether the Philips Trademark consisted of a shape that resulted from the nature of the goods themselves, the learned judge held that the deciding factor was how the goods were viewed in practice as articles of commerce; in this case, electric shavers. As there was no single shape which resulted from the nature of such shavers, this allegation could not be sustained.
Applying the above test to 'tyres for cars', for instance, they would certainly fit in the category. Tyres must be round in shape to perform their function; triangular tyres would logically be beyond the realm of possibility!
The Shape Which is Necessary to Obtain a Technical Result
Turning to the second exclusion, the learned judge agreed with the dissenting judge in the Swedish Court of Appeal decision of Ide Line AG v Philips Electronics NV [1997] ETMR 377 that the determining factor was whether the shape was solely motivated by a technical result. It was irrelevant whether there were other shapes available to perform the same technical result. To exclude shapes with merely trivial embellishments or variants, the learned judge added the qualifying phrase 'in substance'. The test, then, was: in substance does the shape solely achieve a technical result? The Philips Trademark was hard hit by this subsection.
The Shape Which Gives Substantial Value to the Goods
The mark also failed under this third exclusion. Relying on the fact that Philips had over the years put in great advertising effort in educating the public about the engineering functions of its three-headed shaver, the mark was considered to consist of a shape which added substantial value to the goods.
Philips-Remington: The Sequel
Philips appealed. The Court of Appeal, [1999] RPC 50, provisionally upheld the ruling but stayed the appeal and referred seven questions to the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of the Council Directive.
Despite the fact that there was substantial evidence to show that the public correlated the Philips Trademark with Philips' three headed rotary shaver, the Court of Appeal considered that the capability of distinguishing focused on the features of the trademark itself, disregarding any distinctiveness acquired through use. In particular, Mr Aldous LJ of the Court of Appeal opined that an article, in order to be capable of distinguishing, must possess some capricious additions to the shape of the article with trademark significance. The Philips Trademark failed at this threshold. There was no evidence that the three-headed shaver had any trademark signification to acquire a distinctive character.
The Shape Which Results from the Nature of the Goods Themselves
Coming to this provision, his Lordship explained that the subsection was intended to prevent traders from acquiring an exclusive right over basic shapes of any articles or goods. He agreed that, as there was no particular shape for shavers, the learned judge was correct in holding that the Philips Trademark should not be excluded from registration by virtue of this subsection.
The Shape Which is Necessary to Obtain a Technical Result
The exclusion of functional shape marks that are motivated by and are the result of technical considerations also gained the support of his Lordship. Such functional shapes fell within the ambit of patentable inventions, which were the subject of protection for a limited period. They should therefore not warrant the indefinite protection conferred by trademark registration. His Lordship also fortified the decision of the learned judge that it would suffice if the essential features of the shape were designed to achieve a technical result irrespective of whether there were other shapes that could obtain the same technical result.
The Shape Which Gives Substantial Value to the Goods
To determine whether the value was substantial, his Lordship suggested that one had to compare the shape in question with other shapes of equivalent articles. His Lordship held that the trial judge had erroneously taken into account the engineering function and the reputation of the Philips Trademark, boosted through advertising, in deciding whether the shape added any substantial value to the goods. Such factors were viewed by his Lordship to be extraneous. These were therefore deemed not to be grounds for exclusion.
Philips-Remington: The Final Determination?
Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer of the European Court of Justice (the Advocate General), [2001] RPC 745, agreed with the findings of the Court of Appeal that the Philips Trademark was nothing more than a 'combination of technical features produced to achieve a good practical design' (at p 751). Because of this, the Advocate General considered only one question referred by the Court of Appeal to be relevant to the present proceedings: whether the shape, the essential features of which were attributable to the technical result, should be excluded from registration even though there were other shapes which could achieve the same technical result.
The Advocate General's answer to this question was straightforward: a shape mark embracing essential features that are necessary to achieve a particular technical result should be banned from registration regardless of whether there are other shapes capable of performing the same technical result. A shape mark with some minor unique elements, such as colour, would still not survive the exclusion. If the mark is caught by this exclusion, there is no need to further assess whether it has acquired any distinctive character.
The Advocate General explained that the exclusion was to prevent the indefinite and exclusive rights conferred by trademark registration from being usurped in an attempt to extend the life of the monopoly rights granted to patents and designs that are limited in time.
The Advocate General went on to define the different scopes and nature of protection for trademarks, patents and designs. Whilst trademarks seek to protect the identity of the trade origin of the goods for an indefinite period of time, patents and designs are meant to encourage technical innovations and industrial developments by granting exclusive protection for a set term, with the intention of opening the goods and designs to the public when the time expires.
Based on these considerations, the Advocate General affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
Unresolved Questions
Regrettably, the Advocate General stopped there without fully addressing the concerns of the Court of Appeal. For the sake of completeness, the questions that remain can be summarised as follows:
The Way Forward
It remains to be seen whether the Registrar will adopt the opinion of the European Court of Justice. The question of whether it is a correct approach to refuse registration of a shape mark based on s 12(3) without further assessing its distinctiveness awaits a policy decision.
With the new Trade Marks Ordinance due to be in place sometime next year, preparations for the debut publication of a work manual on registrability matters under the new regime are underway. Amongst other issues, shape marks should undoubtedly be one of the agenda items.
Sandra Lee
Baker & McKenzie
© Sandra Lee
一宗近期案例曾經探討《商標條例》下的形狀註冊問題。李韻薇加以剖析
現行《商標條例》（第 43 章）（以下簡稱《條例》）下的「標記」定義，並不明確包括形狀標記。不過，長久以來，只要形狀標記的商標註冊申請符合有關的註冊規定，商標註冊處處長（以下簡稱「處長」）便會批准申請。另一方面，《條例》第 12(3) 條明確禁止自然、功能性及裝飾性形狀標記註冊為商標。那麼，有關的測試標準為何？為什麼法例要作出上述區分？處長現時的做法是什麼？本文旨在探討這些問題，以及討論相關案例。
背景
《條例》第 12(3) 條規定：
「任何記號如僅由下述者組成，即不得註冊為貨品商標–
(a) 由貨品自身的性質所致的形狀；
(b) 為取得技術結果而需有的貨品形狀；或
(c) 使貨品具有重大價值的形狀。」
預期自明年初起生效的新《商標條例》（第 559 章）（以下簡稱《新條例》）的第 11(3) 條，亦載有如上規定。這規定反映了英國《1994 年商標法令》（以下簡稱《1994 年法令》）第 3(2) 條，而該條文則施行歐盟《第一委員會指令》（89/104/EEC，1988 年 12 月 21 日）（以下簡稱《指令》）第 3(1)(e) 條。但要注意，現已廢除的英國《1938 年商標法令》（以下簡稱《1938 年法令》）並沒有任何對等條文。
至於相關案例，我們不得不探討 Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd 一案。
Philips 與 Remington 之戰
Philips 與 Remington 是全球電鬚刨市場的競爭對手。Philips 早於 1985 年已在英國就第八類商品（電鬚刨）將一款「三頭」電鬚刨的頂觀註冊為商標（以下簡稱「Philips 商標」）。到了 1995 年，Remington 亦在英國推出其「三頭」旋轉型鬚刨，從而觸發了兩家公司的法律戰爭。
Philips 入稟法院，控告 Remington 侵犯 Philips 商標和
違反《1994 年法令》的規定。Remington 不僅否認侵犯 Philips 商標，更提出反申索，指 Philips 商標的註冊無效，原因包括：
一、 該商標未能在某製造商的產品與另一製造商的產品之間作出識別；
二、 該商標欠缺任何顯著特性；及
三、 該商標僅包含貨品自身的性質所致的形狀、或為取得技術結果而需有的貨品形狀、或使貨品具有重大價值的形狀。
另要一提的是，Philips 商標原本根據《1938 年法令》註冊；而根據廢除該法令的《1994 年法令》
的附表 3，有關註冊與根據《1994 年法令》而進行的註冊具有同樣效力一樣。鑒於涉案的被指侵權行為於 1995年發生，故法院須根據《1994 年法令》考慮註冊有效性的問題。
英國專利法院法官 Jacobs 裁定 Remington 勝訴，並宣告 Philips 商標無效（見 [1998] RPC 283）。儘管有關標記符合《1994 年法令》下「記號」的規定，但 Jacobs 法官裁定，該標記既不能在業務運作中在 Philips 的產品與其他貿易商的產品之間作出識別，亦欠缺任何顯著特性，因此不符合註冊條件。
Jacobs 法官恐防關於欠缺顯著特性的裁決出錯，因此接而考慮涉案標記是否屬於《1994 年法令》第 3(2) 條下的其中一種或以上「不得註冊功能性標記」情況。
由貨品自身的性質所致的形狀
在 Philips 商標是否由貨品自身的性質所致的形狀組成的問題上，Jacobs 法官裁定，關鍵因素是貨品實際上被視為何等商業物品，即電鬚刨。鑒於電鬚刨本身的性質並不導致任何特定形狀，故此指涉案標記因屬於貨品自身性質所致的形狀而不能註冊的指稱不能成立。
這可與汽車輪呔的例子作對照。輪呔必須呈圓形，才可發揮其效用；我們怎也不能想像三角形輪呔如何在道路上使用吧！
為取得技術結果而需有的貨品形狀
關於這方面的測試標準，Jacobs 法官引述了一宗瑞典上訴法院案例 Ide Line AG v Philips Electronics NV [1997] ETMR 377，並贊同案中持不同意見的法官的說法，意思是，關鍵因素在於有關形狀是否純粹由某技術結果促成。是否存在著其他能取得同一技術結果的形狀，是無關痛癢的。Jacobs 法官為著豁除只帶微不足道的裝飾或變體的形狀，將上述測試稍作修改，加上「實質」條件，令測試標準成為：有關形狀實質上是否純粹達致某技術結果？Philips 商標不能通過這測試。
使貨品具有重大價值的形狀
涉案標記亦不能通過這方面的規定。多年來 Philips 一直致力向大眾宣傳其「三頭」電鬚刨的機械功能，而 Jacobs 法官憑藉這一點，裁定涉案標記包含使貨品增添重大價值的形狀。
Philips-Remington
鬥爭的延續
Philips 就 Jacobs 法官的裁決提出上訴。上訴法院初步確認上述裁決，但下令暫緩上訴程序，並將七條關於《指令》釋義的問題提交歐洲法院處理（見 [1999] RPC 50）。
縱使案中有充分證據顯示公眾普遍已將 Philips 商標與 Philips 的「三頭」旋轉型鬚刨連繫起來，但上訴法院認為，識別貨品的能力，須視乎商標本身的特徵而定，但不應考慮透過使用而得取的顯著特性。上訴法院法官 Aldous 指出，具備識別貨品能力的物品，其形狀須附有一些幻想性且帶有商標意義的特徵，而 Philips 商標正正不帶有這些特徵。案中沒有證據顯示 Philips 的「三頭」電鬚刨具有任何商標意義，從而使它具有顯著特性。
由貨品自身的性質所致的形狀
就有關法例條文而言，Aldous 法官解釋說，該條文旨在防止貿易商取得任何物品或貨品的基本形狀的專利權。法官認為，鑒於鬚刨沒有固定形狀，故 Jacobs 法官正確地裁定 Philips 商標不應因有關條文而遭禁止註冊。
為取得技術結果而需有的貨品形狀
Aldous 法官贊成豁除由技術考慮因素促成並作為其成果的功能性形狀標記。這類功能性形狀標記屬於可獲給予專利的發明，而專利權所提供的保護期有限，因此這類功能性形狀不應得到商標註冊所賦予的無限期保護。法官亦支持 Jacobs 法官的以下裁決：只要有關形狀的主要特徵是為達致某技術結果而設計，便已足夠，而是否存在著其他能取得同一技術結果的形狀，是無關痛癢的。
使貨品具有重大價值的形狀
法官認為，決定貨品價值是否重大時，需要將有關形狀與對等物品的其他形狀進行比較。法官裁定，Jacobs 法官考慮涉案形狀是否令貨品增添重大價值時，曾錯誤地顧及該貨品的機械功能以及 Philips 商標憑藉廣告宣傳而得享的聲譽。Aldous 法官認為這些因素屬於外來因素。因此，法官認為涉案標記不應因有關條文而遭禁止註冊。
誰勝誰負？
上訴法院曾裁定 Philips 商標不外是「各種為達致良好實際設計而設的技術特徵的組合」，而這裁決得到歐洲法院總訟辯專員 Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 贊同（見 [2001] RPC 745，在第 751 頁）。有鑒於此，專員認為，上訴法院所提交的問題當中，只有以下一項與是次法律程序有關：假如某形狀的主要特徵可歸因於技術結果，則即使存在著其他可達致同一技術結果的形狀，該形狀是否仍應遭禁止註冊？
專員在這個問題上的答案是直截了當的：假如某形狀標記包含達致某技術結果而需有的主要特徵，則不管是否存在著其他可達致相同技術結果的形狀，該標記仍不應獲准註冊。即使某形狀標記附有一些細微但獨特的元素（例如顏色），該標記仍不享有豁免。倘若某標記因此而遭禁止註冊，當局將毋須進而評估該標記是否已得取任何顯著特性。
專員解釋說，商標註冊所賦予的是沒有限期的專利權，而禁止有關形狀註冊的目的，是防止任何人試圖藉著取得商標註冊而變相延展本來有期限的專利保護和設計保護。
專員繼而解釋商標、專利和設計保護的不同範圍和性質。商標的目的是無限期保護貨品貿易來源的身分；專利和設計則旨在鼓勵技術創新和工業發展，方法是在固定期間賦予專利保護，但有關貨品和設計於保護期屆滿後將需要向大眾公開。
基於上述理由，專員確認了上訴法院的裁決。
有待解答的問題
專員沒有全面考慮上訴法院所提出的所有問題，實令人惋惜。現將這些有待解答的問題撮述如下：
一、 是否存在著一個類別的標記，雖然不缺乏顯著特性或未變為普遍或慣常性質，但仍被視為不能區別某貿易商的貨品為有別於另一貿易商的貨品？
二、 某形狀是否需要附帶一些幻想性的特徵，例如沒有功能性用途的裝飾？
三、 沒有附帶幻想性的特徵的功能性形狀標記，可否透過被使用而得取顯著特性？
四、 在禁止註冊某些用作指明貨品的種類、質量、預定用途、價值、地域來源或生產時間的記號的條文中，「專有」一詞的意思為何？（《新條例》第 11(1)(c) 條包含了對等條文）
五、 註冊所有人是否有權防止第三者使用相同或類似記號，即使該等使用並非作為顯示貿易來源？
六、 在缺乏相反聲明的情況下，即使某被指侵犯商標的貨品形狀的使用確是並且將被視為顯示貨品的種類或預定用途，假如有關貿易量令公眾相信被指載有侵權形狀的貨品來自有關的商標所有人，上述使用是否亦屬於顯示貿易來源？
何去何從？
處長是否會採納歐洲法院的意見，仍有待分曉。此外，根據《條例》第 12(3) 條並在沒有進一步考慮某形狀標記的顯著性而拒絕註冊該標記的做法是否正確，仍有待決策當局澄清。
《新條例》預計於明年開始實施，而首部關乎新制度下的可註冊性事宜的實用指南，亦正在籌備出版的階段。形狀標記無疑將成為新制度和新指南所處理的項目之一。
李韻薇律師
麥堅時律師行
【註：本文英文本之版權為李韻薇律師所有】