Preamble

Print this page

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Union, and in particular Article 308 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [1],

 

Whereas:

 

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the EU trade mark [2] has been substantially amended several times [3]. In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.

 

(2) It is desirable to promote throughout the Union a harmonious development of economic activities and a continuous and balanced expansion by completing an internal market which functions properly and offers conditions which are similar to those obtaining in a national market. In order to create a market of this kind and make it increasingly a single market, not only must barriers to free movement of goods and services be removed and arrangements be instituted which ensure that competition is not distorted, but, in addition, legal conditions must be created which enable undertakings to adapt their activities to the scale of the Union, whether in manufacturing and distributing goods or in providing services. For those purposes, trade marks enabling the products and services of undertakings to be distinguished by identical means throughout the entire Union, regardless of frontiers, should feature amongst the legal instruments which undertakings have at their disposal.

 

(3) For the purpose of pursuing the Union's said objectives it would appear necessary to provide for Union arrangements for trade marks whereby undertakings can by means of one procedural system obtain EU trade marks to which uniform protection is given and which produce their effects throughout the entire area of the Union. The principle of the unitary character of the EU trade mark thus stated should apply unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation.

 

(4) The barrier of territoriality of the rights conferred on proprietors of trade marks by the laws of the Member States cannot be removed by approximation of laws. In order to open up unrestricted economic activity in the whole of the internal market for the benefit of undertakings, trade marks should be created which are governed by a uniform Union law directly applicable in all Member States.

 

(5) Since the Treaty has not provided the specific powers to establish such a legal instrument, Article 308 of the Treaty should be applied.

 

(6) The Union law relating to trade marks nevertheless does not replace the laws of the Member States on trade marks. It would not in fact appear to be justified to require undertakings to apply for registration of their trade marks as EU trade marks. National trade marks continue to be necessary for those undertakings which do not want protection of their trade marks at Union level.

 

(7) The rights in a EU trade mark should not be obtained otherwise than by registration, and registration should be refused in particular if the trade mark is not distinctive, if it is unlawful or if it conflicts with earlier rights.

 

(8) The protection afforded by a EU trade mark, the function of which is in particular to guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin, should be absolute in the case of identity between the mark and the sign and the goods or services. The protection should apply also in cases of similarity between the mark and the sign and the goods or services. An interpretation should be given of the concept of similarity in relation to the likelihood of confusion. The likelihood of confusion, the appreciation of which depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified, should constitute the specific condition for such protection.

 

(9) It follows from the principle of free movement of goods that the proprietor of a EU trade mark must not be entitled to prohibit its use by a third party in relation to goods which have been put into circulation in the Union, under the trade mark, by him or with his consent, save where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the goods.

 

(10) There is no justification for protecting EU trade marks or, as against them, any trade mark which has been registered before them, except where the trade marks are actually used.

 

(11) A EU trade mark is to be regarded as an object of property which exists separately from the undertakings whose goods or services are designated by it. Accordingly, it should be capable of being transferred, subject to the overriding need to prevent the public being misled as a result of the transfer. It should also be capable of being charged as security in favour of a third party and of being the subject matter of licences.

 

(12) Administrative measures are necessary at Union level for implementing in relation to every trade mark the trade mark law created by this Regulation. It is therefore essential, while retaining the Union's existing institutional structure and balance of powers, to provide for an Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) which is independent in relation to technical matters and has legal, administrative and financial autonomy. To this end it is necessary and appropriate that that Office should be a body of the Union having legal personality and exercising the implementing powers which are conferred on it by this Regulation, and that it should operate within the framework of Union law without detracting from the competencies exercised by the Union institutions.

 

(13) It is necessary to ensure that parties who are affected by decisions made by the Office are protected by the law in a manner which is suited to the special character of trade mark law. To that end provision is made for an appeal to lie from decisions of the examiners and of the various divisions of the Office. If the department whose decision is contested does not rectify its decision it is to remit the appeal to a Board of Appeal of the Office, which is to decide on it. Decisions of the Boards of Appeal are, in turn, amenable to actions before the Court of Justice of the Union, which has jurisdiction to annul or to alter the contested decision.

 

(14) Under the first subparagraph of Article 225(1) of the EC Treaty the Court of First Instance of the Union has jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance the actions referred to in particular in Article 230 of the EC Treaty with the exception of those assigned to a judicial panel and those reserved in the Statute to the Court of Justice. The jurisdiction which this Regulation confers on the Court of Justice to cancel and alter decisions of the Boards of Appeal should accordingly be exercised at first instance by the Court.

 

(15) In order to strengthen the protection of EU trade marks the Member States should designate, having regard to their own national system, as limited a number as possible of national courts of first and second instance having jurisdiction in matters of infringement and validity of EU trade marks.

 

(16) Decisions regarding the validity and infringement of EU trade marks must have effect and cover the entire area of the Union, as this is the only way of preventing inconsistent decisions on the part of the courts and the Office and of ensuring that the unitary character of EU trade marks is not undermined. The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [4] should apply to all actions at law relating to EU trade marks, save where this Regulation derogates from those rules.

 

(17) Contradictory judgments should be avoided in actions which involve the same acts and the same parties and which are brought on the basis of a EU trade mark and parallel national trade marks. For this purpose, when the actions are brought in the same Member State, the way in which this is to be achieved is a matter for national procedural rules, which are not prejudiced by this Regulation, whilst when the actions are brought in different Member States, provisions modelled on the rules on lis pendens and related actions of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 appear appropriate.

 

(18) In order to guarantee the full autonomy and independence of the Office, it is considered necessary to grant it an autonomous budget whose revenue comes principally from fees paid by the users of the system. However, the Union budgetary procedure remains applicable as far as any subsidies chargeable to the general budget of the Union are concerned. Moreover, the auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors.

 

(19) Measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted, particularly as regards fees regulations and an Implementing Regulation, in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [5],

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: