| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font
First page > Show document

Show document Help

Title:MEJE PRAVNEGA VARSTVA ZNAMKE
Authors:ID Štrancar, Simona (Author)
ID Repas, Martina (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Strancar_Simona_2010.pdf (805,01 KB)
MD5: EEE7153F56612CCC486B58BB7809F498
PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/e7aad399-4631-49c2-b2fc-87520c659033
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Magistrska naloga obravnava področje pravnega varstva znamk v okviru tradicionalne uporabe znamke kot pri njeni uporabi na internetu. Pomembno je, da sta tako imetnik znamke kot tretja oseba, seznanjena katera dejanja uporabe registriranega znaka so zakonsko dovoljena in predstavljajo dopustni poseg v imetnikovo pravico do znamke, ter katera uporaba znaka predstavlja njeno kršitev. V magistrski nalogi podrobno obravnavam pogoje, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da lahko govorimo o kršitvi znamke, ki izhajajo iz veljavne zakonodaje ter sodne prakse Sodišča. Sodišče pri svojih odločitvah namreč ni bilo povsem dosledno in je, pri interpretaciji pogojev za kršitev, pustilo nekaj nejasnosti in zmede. Zavedati se moramo, da je enotna interpretacija določb o znamkah v EU bistvenega pomena, saj gre za pravno področje, ki je v veliki meri predmet harmonizacije. Prav tako morajo vsi imetniki znamke uživati enake pravice v vseh državah članicah EU. Iz odločitev Sodišča izhaja, da o kršitvi znamke govorimo, kadar so kumulativno izpolnjeni štirje pogoji: (i) znak se mora uporabljati v gospodarske namene, (iI) znak se mora uporabljati za označevanje blaga ali storitev, ki je enako ali podobno blagu oz. storitvi imetnika znamke, (iii) znak se mora uporabljati kot znamka, ter (iv) znak se mora uporabljati brez soglasja imetnika znamke. Predpostavke kršitvenega dejanja znamke z ugledom so opredeljene nekoliko drugače kot predpostavke kršitve običajne znamke. Objekta razširjenega varstva znamke sta njen razlikovalni značaj in ugled. Pri znamki ugleda se pogoj ustvarjanje zmede v javnosti ne zahteva, pravno varstvo pa je zagotovljeno tudi v okviru istovrstnosti in podobnosti blaga, čeprav zakon tega izrecno ne določa. Posebna obravnava je namenjena tudi kršitvam znamk na internetu. Internet in oglaševanje na njem sta v zadnjih letih postala precej razširjena, s tem pa tudi kršitve znamk. Kršitev znamk na internetu predstavlja posebnost v pravu znamk in teži k drugačnemu pristopu, saj tradicionalna pravna pravila praviloma v teh primerih niso uporabna. Pri reševanju teh primerov (zlasti v primerih uporabe znamke kot iskalni niz ali kot meta oznaka) so nacionalna sodišča zavzela različna stališča. Težko pričakovana odločitev Sodišča v zadevi Louis Vuitton Malletier proti Google, pa je razjasnila določene dileme. Sodišče je zavzelo sodoben pristop k reševanju problematike uporabe znamk na internetu in odločilo, da uporaba znamke kot iskalni niz ne predstavlja kršitve znamke. Poleg tega, da imetniki vedo kdaj gre za kršitev njihovih pravic iz znamke, je pomembno, da poznajo primere uporabe znamke, ki so dovoljeni že na podlagi veljavne zakonodaje. Izjeme so predstavljen in obravnavane skozi analizo sodne prakse. Razloge za takšno ureditev in možnost proste uporabe gre iskati v upoštevanju nujnosti zagotavljanja prostega pretoka blaga in storitev. Primeri proste uporabe znamke so uporaba lastnega imena ali naslova, uporaba v opisne (deskriptivne) namene, uporaba za označitev namena proizvoda ali storitve ter prejšnja uporaba in uporaba kot posledico privolitve, pod pogojem, da tretja oseba pri tem ravna v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji. Poleg navedenih omejitev pravic iz znamke, lahko med omejitve pravic iz znamke štejemo tudi izčrpanje pravic iz znamke. Tudi v tem primeru namreč imetnik znamke ne more več uveljavljati svoji izključnih pravic, potem ko je dal blago prvič na trg ali je bilo dano na trg z njegovim soglasjem.
Keywords:znamka, pravno varstvo, kršitev znamk, pogoji za kršitev znamk, kršitev znamk an internetu, izjeme
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[S. Štrancar]
Year of publishing:2010
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-16839 New window
UDC:347.77(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:4158763 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:ZQZZKDPH
Publication date in DKUM:07.12.2010
Views:4166
Downloads:601
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
ŠTRANCAR, Simona, 2010, MEJE PRAVNEGA VARSTVA ZNAMKE [online]. Master’s thesis. Maribor : S. Štrancar. [Accessed 1 April 2025]. Retrieved from: https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=eng&id=16839
Copy citation
  
Average score:
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:LEGAL PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND ITS LIMITS
Abstract:This master’s thesis is about the legal protection of trademarks within the framework of its use in a traditional sense and its use on the Internet. It is important that the proprietor and the third party are informed which use of registered trademark is legally permitted and allows interference in proprietor’s legal right and which use of a trademark constitutes an infringement. The following master’s thesis discusses in detail conditions that must be met, so that we can talk about infringement of a trademark, and that derive from both applicable law and case law of the Court. When interpreting infringement conditions the Court was not entirely consistent in its decisions, which resulted in some lack of clarity and confusion. We should be aware of the importance of common interpretation of trademark provisions in EU because this is a legal field which is to a great extent a subject of harmonisation. Besides, all proprietors should enjoy the same rights in all member states of EU. It is seen from the Court decisions that four infringement conditions must cumulatively be met in order to talk about trademark infringement: (i) sign must be used in the course of trade, (ii) sign must be used for marking goods or services which are identical or similar to goods or services of a trademark’s proprietor, (iii) sign must be used as a trademark and (iv) sign must be used without a proprietor’s consent. Assumptions of infringement of a reputable trademark slightly differentiate from assumptions of infringement of a regular trademark. Objects of extended protection are a trademark’s distinctive character and reputation. When considering a reputable trademark, the infringement condition of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public is not relevant, however, its legal protection is provided within the framework of identity and similarity of goods, although this is not expressly provided by an act. Special treatment is required for trademark infringements on the Internet. The Internet and on-line advertising have expanded significantly in recent years and consequently also trademark infringements. Trademark infringements on the Internet are a speciality in trademark law and tend to be approached in a different way since traditional rules in these cases cannot be applied. When solving these cases (especially the cases where a trademark is used as a keyword or meta-tagging) national courts have taken different points of view. Badly expected decision of the Court on the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v Google clarified some dilemmas. The Court adopted a contemporary approach when solving the problems of trademark usage on the Internet and decided that the use of a trademark as a keyword does not constitute an infringement act. It is important for a proprietor to know when their legal rights based on trademarks are infringed. However, a proprietor must also be aware of what use of trademark is legally permitted. Exceptions are presented and considered through the analysis of the case law. The grounds for such regulation and free use can be found in taking into account the necessity of providing free movement of goods and services. Examples of free use of a trademark, under the condition that a third party acts in accordance with honest practice, are use of a name or address, descriptive use, use to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, use of an earlier trademark and use without the consent of the proprietor. Limitations of trademark rights include the above mentioned limitations as well as the exhaustion of rights. Moreover, in the latter case a trademark proprietor cannot protect his exclusive trademark rights after he has introduced goods or services under that trademark to the market or they have been introduced to the market with their consent.
Keywords:trade mark, legal protection, infrigement of trademark, trademark infrigement conditions, trademark infrigements on the Internet, exceptions


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica