Dr. Alexander Tsoutsanis Session 1: Bad faith & Burden of Proof EU-China workshop on new issues in trademark filings, Beijing, 28-29 June 2011 Dr. Alexander Tsoutsanis

Proving what? Ground PC EU China "Well-known marks" 6bis § 13/14 Bad "agent" 6sept. § 15 "Bad faith" - ? TMA 2001: § 31 ? Draft: § 9 § 34 China: accession to PC in 1985. China: cancellation in § 41. EU: different approach on prior use in/outside EU.

EU: 'bad faith' - legislation Trade Mark Directive § 3-2(d) § 4-4(g) optional implementing provisions for each Member State Community Trade Mark Regulation § 52-1(b) applies to all CTM's 2009: ECJ ruling in 'Goldhase'.

EU: Bad Faith after Goldhase Bad faith = absolute ground (par. 34) Filing date decisive for assessment (par. 35-36) ‘overall assessment’ required, ‘taking into account all the factors relevant to the particular case.’ (par. 37)

EU: Bad Faith - 3 key factors Applicant knows or must know that a third party is using an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused (..); Also necessary to assess applicant’s intention to prevent a third party from marketing a product. The degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought is also relevant.

EU - burden of proof Prior user has burden of proof of ALL factors and facts pointing towards 'bad faith'. but should not result in impossible evidentiary burden. Two favorable rules from ECJ: 'constructive knowledge' is sufficient 'intention' can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

EU - burden of proof Further suggestions to lower burden of proof of prior user: German case-law suggests to infer 'intention' from 'knowledge' (BPatG 2008 Waldschatz). A-G Sharpston in Goldhase: “not a great deal more evidence will be required to decide the matter” (par. 65). BPatG 23 Juli 2008 28 W (pat) 193/07 (Waldschatz) p. 6: “die Anforderungen an die Feststellung einer Behinderungsabsicht dürfen dabei nicht überspannt werden. Vielmehr ist es ausreichend, wenn sich unter Würdigung der maßgeblichen Feststellungen nach der allgemeinen Lebenserfahrung eine Behinderungsabsicht aufdrängt. Die Kenntnis des Anmelders von der Vorbenutzung durch den Dritten stellt insoweit ein wichtiges Indiz für die Behinderungs- und Sperrabsicht dar.”

OHIM BoA 18/01/2011 Alphatec “On the basis of the available evidence it cannot be concluded that the respondent acted in bad faith when filing the CTM. If the evidence raises doubts as to the assessment of bad faith, such uncertainty has to be resolved to the benefit of the CTM proprietor as the good faith presumption in such circumstances prevails. Facts and arguments invoked for showing bad faith should not lead to contradictions; otherwise the request has to be rejected as unfounded and as inconclusive.”

EU - burden of proof Accused TM applicant Needs to provide convincing rebuttal on arguments raised by prior user. Needs to substantiate all other relevant factors pointing away from 'bad faith', incl. specific factors mentioned by ECJ such as: Legitimate purpose (factor 2). Degree of legal protection (factor 3).

EU - recent cases - score card OHIM CD 22/09/2009 (GOSHA): denied UK High Court 20/10/2010 (OCH ZIFF v. OCH): denied DE BPatG 29/10/2010 (POST): denied NL DC Arnhem 19/01/2011 (Hei Bike v. Hai Bike): denied OHIM BoA 18/01/2011 Alphatec: denied DC Amsterdam: 26/01/2011 Monta v. Masters: allowed OHIM BoA 23/03/2011 Colourblind: denied

Conclusions 'Goldhase' test has raised the threshold for invalidating a mark on the basis of bad faith. Note: this is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Prior user has burden of proof, but can benefit by relying on (i) 'constructive knowledge' and (ii) by inferring 'intention' from circumstantial evidence. Overall: current burden of proof is fair + balanced.

Questions ? alexander.tsoutsanis@dlapiper.com Thank you for your attention