| Popis: |
Magistrsko delo Omejitve pravic iz znamke po novi EU zakonodaji obravnava posamezne omejitve pravic iz znamke, v zvezi s katerimi je nova zakonodaja EU prinesla nekatere novosti in spremembe. Napravljena je konkretna primerjava določb Direktive 2015/2436 in novele ZIL-1E, ki je Direktivo 2015/2436 prenesla v slovenski pravni red. Poleg splošnih omejitev (uporaba imena ali naslova, deskriptivna uporaba, referenčna uporaba in uporaba pravice, ki velja le na določenem območju), so predmet analize magistrskega dela še nekatere specialne omejitve, kot so dobroverna prejšnja uporaba po ZIL-1, omejitev kot posledica privolitve in omejitve pravic iz kolektivne in certifikacijske znamke. V okviru določenih omejitev je nova zakonodaja posegla v sodno prakso Sodišča EU. Očiten primer se kaže pri omejitvi glede uporabe imena ali naslova, ki je bila s prenovljeno določbo usmerjena izključno na fizične osebe. Sodna praksa je pred tem dopuščala, da so se na omejitev lahko sklicevale tudi pravne osebe oziroma družbe in v gospodarskem prometu v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji uporabljale znamki enako firmo ali trgovinsko ime. Avtor ugotavlja, da izključitev družb iz te omejitve zagotavlja boljše razlikovanje med znamko in firmo oziroma trgovinskim imenom. Vendarle velja slednje le v omejenem obsegu, saj je položaj nekaterih družb ostal nespremenjen. To so predvsem tiste družbe, ki so trgovinska imena ali firme začele uporabljati pred registracijo znamke. Le-te imajo še zmeraj možnost obrambe v smislu omejitve pri uporabi imena ali naslova. Enako velja za firme samostojnih podjetnikov. Poleg tega se lahko po slovenskem pravu tretji, ki so določen znak začeli dobroverno uporabljati pred prijavo znamke, prav tako sklicujejo tudi na dodatno omejitev prejšnje dobroverne uporabe, ki je Direktiva 2015/2436 ne vsebuje. Nenazadnje pa večje razlikovanje omogoča izključitev omejitve za tiste družbe, ki so firme začele uporabljati po registraciji znamke in zagotovitev pravice do preprečitve registracije kasnejše znamke na podlagi neregistriranega prejšnjega znaka (firme) po novem relativnem razlogu za zavrnitev, ki ga je prenesla novela ZIL-1E. Avtor nadalje posebej izpostavlja primernost ureditve koeksistence dveh enakih znamk kot posledice privolitve imetnika prejšnje znamke k uporabi kasnejše. Z vidika potrošnika in zagotavljanja temeljne funkcije izvora takšen položaj zmeraj ni ustrezen, vendar je pri tem potrebno ločiti primere dvojne identičnosti in primere podobnosti. Kadar hkrati obstajata dve enaki znamki za enako blago ali storitve, se obstoj zmede pri potrošnikih predvideva in če se potrošniki ne bodo mogli zavedati razlik med njima, znamka ne bo zagotovila svoje funkcije izvora. V primeru podobnosti se zmeda ne predvideva, zato je zahtevano tehtanje pogoja ustvarjanja zmede v vsaki zadevi posebej. The master's thesis Limitations of the trade mark rights under the new EU legislation deals with individual limitations of the trade mark rights, in relation to which the new EU legislation has brought some innovations and changes. A concrete comparison is made between the provisions of Directive 2015/2436 and the amendment to ZIL-1, which transposed Directive 2015/2436 into Slovenian law. In addition to general limitations (use of name or address, descriptive use, referential use and use of an earlier right which only applies in a particular locality), the subject of the master's thesis analysis includes some special limitations, such as earlier good faith use under ZIL-1, limitation in consequence of acquiescence and limitations of collective and certification mark rights. Within certain limits, the new legislation has interfered with the case law of the CJEU. An obvious example is the limitation on the use of the name or address (own name use defence), which, with the revised provision, was aimed exclusively at natural persons. The case law previously allowed that legal persons or companies could also invoke the limitation and use, in the course of trade in accordance with honest practices, a company or a trade name that was identical to a trade mark. The author notes that the exclusion of companies from this limitation provides a better distinction between a trade mark and a company or a trade name. However, the latter applies only to a limited extent, as the situation of some companies remained unchanged. These are mainly those companies that started using company or trade names before the trade mark was registered. They still have the option of defence in terms of a limitation on the use of the name or address. The same goes for sole proprietorships. In addition, under Slovenian law, third parties who have started to use a certain mark in good faith before applying for a trade mark may also refer to an additional limitation on earlier good faith use, which is not contained in Directive 2015/2436. Last but not least, a greater distinction allows the exclusion of the limitation for those companies that started using trade marks after the registration of the trade mark and the provision of the right to prevent the registration of a later trade mark on the basis of a non-registered earlier mark (company name), under the new relative ground for refusal, which was transposed with the amendment to ZIL-1. The author further emphasizes the appropriateness of the regulation of the coexistence of two identical trade marks as a consequence of acquiescence of the proprietor of the earlier trade mark to the use of the later one. From the consumer's point of view and the provision of a fundamental function of origin, such a situation is not always appropriate, but it is necessary to distinguish between cases of double identity and cases of similarity. Where two identical trade marks for the same goods or services coexist, the existence of confusion on the part of the consumer is presumed and, if consumers are unable to be aware of the differences between them, the trade mark will not guarantee its function of origin. In the case of similarities, confusion is not foreseen, so the weighting of the condition of creating confusion in each case is required separately. |
