Report Q168

1.

Is there any requirement for use of a mark "as a mark" for the purposes of:

Acquiring a mark

According to Sections 1 and 2 of the Trademark Act (10 January 1964/7, as amended), the right to a trademark may be acquired either by registration or by establishment through use. A trademark shall be regarded as established if it has become generally known in the relevant business or consumer circles in Finland as a symbol specific to its proprietor’s goods or services. Use of a trademark “as a mark” for the purpose of acquiring trademark rights through establishment is thus required. No use “as a mark” is required to obtain trademark rights to distinctive marks through registration.

Trademark rights can normally be obtained for non-distinctive marks only through establishment. According to Section 13 of the Trademark Act, a right to a non-distinctive trademark may be obtained by registration if it can be proved that the trademark has acquired secondary meaning through extensive use.

Maintaining of a trade mark registration

According to Section 26 of the Trademark Act, the registration of a trademark can be revoked at the request of a third party if the mark has not been used during the last five years after the registration of the mark, or if the use thereafter has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, and the proprietor is unable to give a proper reason therefor. The use of a trademark with the proprietor’s consent, for instance by an affiliated company or licensee, is considered equal to use by the proprietor.

According to the third Subsection of Section 26 of the Trademark Act, the trademark has to be used in connection with all the registered goods, otherwise the trademark rights will be revoked in respect of the goods in connection with which the mark has not been used.

In Finnish case law and doctrine it has been considered that in order to maintain a trademark registration, actual use “as a mark” must have taken place in the scale of the commercial activity pursued by the proprietor of the trademark. Preparation for use, for instance the printing of packaging material and preliminary marketing research, has in case law not been considered sufficient in order to constitute actual use, where the preparations have not been directed to the general public (Helsinki Court of Appeal, decision S91/1000 of 18 March 1992 ”BOSS”).

Establishing infringement

The exclusive right to a trademark is defined in Section 4 of the Trademark Act, according to which in the course of trade, only the proprietor of a mark (or another party with the proprietor’s consent) may use an identical or confusingly similar symbol for identical or similar goods or services, on the goods themselves or their packaging, in advertising or in commercial documents, or in any other way, including orally. The provision applies regardless of whether the goods are offered for sale or intended to be offered for sale in Finland or abroad, or of whether they are imported for commercial use, preservation, storage, or transport to a third country.

Use of a trademark “as a mark” is thus required in order for the use to constitute infringement of an identical or similar mark. There is, however, no requirement that the earlier registered mark must have been used “as a mark” in order for the proprietor to be able to submit infringement claims against the use of an identical or confusingly similar mark.

2.

Is there any definition of what is use “as a mark” either in statute or case law?

Regarding definitions in statute law, please see Sections 1.1 – 1.3 above. In addition to those Sections it should be mentioned that use “as a mark” is defined in Section 1 of the Trademark Act as use of a mark in the course of trade to distinguish goods or services from those of others. Non-commercial use is thus not considered to be use “as a mark”.

The Group has not been able to find any comprehensive definitions of use “as a mark” in case law, but only definitions of what does or does not constitute use “as a mark” under certain specific circumstances. A case-by-case interpretation of what is to be considered use “as a mark” must therefore be made according to the individual circumstances of the case, and the evidence of use must be weighed in an overall assessment. The cases found indicate, however, what kind of evidence can be used to prove use “as a mark”. Different kinds of evidence have been admitted by the Patent Office and the courts quite liberally. For instance printed matter, affidavits of use, commercials and use on the Internet have been admitted as evidence of use “as a mark”.

3.

Is there any difference in the assessment of use "as a mark" between the acquisition, maintenance and infringement of rights?

Use “as a mark” is, according to the opinion of the Group, in principle assessed according to the same criteria in all cases. The required intensity and quality of the use does, however, differ between acquisition, maintenance and infringement of rights.

In respect of the acquiring of trademark rights through establishment the required intensity of use “as a mark” is the most extensive. In respect of maintenance, use “as a mark” by the proprietor or with his consent must have taken place in relation to the normal scale of commercial activity pursued by the proprietor of the trademark. In respect of infringement it is sufficient that the goods are intended to be offered for sale.

4.

Is any of the following considered to be use "as a mark":

4.1

Use on the internet, as a metatag, in linking or framing

General issues

Use on the Internet alone, or combined with other kinds of use, can under certain circumstances be considered to be use “as a mark” for the purpose of establishment or maintenance of marks.

In case of an infringement related to use on the Internet, the rules of Finnish trademark law are applied as in any other case of infringement.

According to the Trademark Act, any commercial use of a trademark identical or confusingly similar to another’s trademark for identical or similar goods or services, is prohibited. Use as a metatag, in linking or framing is thus not excluded from the consideration of whether there has been use “as a mark”.

Use as a metatag

The question of whether or not use as a metatag can be considered to be use “as a mark” in Finland is unsettled.

There is one recent decision of the Market Court (1999:015 of 1 November 1999 “VIAGRENE”), in which the use of metatags was considered to constitute unfair trade practice. The defendant had used the plaintiff’s registered trademark and tradename VIAGRA in plain text on its site and as metatags and keywords leading to the site. The Market Court gave a ruling based on the Unfair Trade Practices Act (22 December 1978/1061, as amended), in which the Market Court i.a. prohibited the defendant from using the marks in connection with the site.

The Group considers that the commercial use of a competitor’s trademark as a metatag may also constitute trademark infringement under certain circumstances.

Use in linking or framing

The question of whether or not linking or framing can constitute use “as a mark” in Finland is unsettled. There is no case law on the subject.

Trademark infringement through linking and framing can be prohibited under the Unfair Trade Practices Act if the use is misleading or takes unfair advantage of the goodwill of another’s trademark. However, in most cases linking or framing may be considered informative use, which is allowed under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

4.2

Use by fan clubs or supporters

Use by fan clubs or supporters can, together with other kinds of use (interpreted on a case-by-case basis), be considered to be use “as a mark” for the acquiring of trademark rights through establishment. There is no case law on the subject.

Use by fan clubs or supporters cannot constitute use “as a mark” for the maintenance of a mark unless it is a question of an official fan club managed by the trademark proprietor. The criterion, according to which use for the purposes of maintaining of a trademark registration must be undertaken by the trademark proprietor or with his express consent, applies here as well.

As commercial use is a criterion for trademark infringement, use by private fan clubs or supporters does not usually constitute trademark infringement. If, however, the fan club expands to merchandising by e.g. printing T-shirts in order to gain profit from this activity, such activity might constitute trademark infringement, usually provided that the trademark is reputed or well known or that the goods and services provided are the same or similar to those of the trademark proprietor.

4.3

Parody

Even parodying use of a trademark can, together with other kinds of use (interpreted on a case-by-case basis), be considered to be use “as a mark” for the acquiring of trademark rights through establishment. For the maintenance of marks the use should be undertaken by the proprietor or with his express consent in order for it to be considered use “as a mark”. There is no case law on the subject.

As commercial use is a criterion for trademark infringement, non-commercial parodies cannot constitute infringement (for instance shows, cabarets etc.). Commercial use of a trademark by competitors may probably be seen as use “as a mark” and prohibited as trademark infringement provided that the goods or services are similar or that the trademark is reputed or well known. There is, however, no case law on the subject. Parodying use can also be prohibited as unfair trade practice under the Unfair Trade Practices Act if the use is misleading or takes unfair advantage of the goodwill of another's trademark.

4.4

Comparative advertising

Comparative advertising can, together with other kinds of use (interpreted on a case-by-case basis), be considered to be use “as a mark” for the acquiring of trademark rights through establishment. For the maintenance of marks the use should be undertaken by the proprietor or with his express consent in order for it to be considered use “as a mark”. There is no case law on the subject.

The use of another’s trademark in comparative advertising has in case law normally not been considered infringing when the trademark has been used for identification or information purposes. The criteria for when comparative advertising is allowed in general have recently been taken into the Consumer Protection Act (20 January 1978/38, as amended).

Comparative advertising which is misleading or which takes unfair advantage of the goodwill of another’s trademark can be prohibited as unfair trade practice under the Unfair Trade Practices Act or the Consumer Protection Act.

5.

If, under the Group's national regime, use as a mark is confined to the traditional indications of origin or identity, are unconventional uses nevertheless objectionable under trademark or other laws (e.g. unfair competition and trade practice laws).

As can be read from the above, the concept of use “as a mark” has been interpreted broadly in Finland. Unconventional use may thus fall under the Trademark Act when the infringed trademark is registered or established and the trademark is used by a competitor in the course of trade.

Unconventional use can, however, also be considered objectionable as unfair trade practice under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, providing that the use is misleading or that it takes unfair advantage of the goodwill of another’s trademark. According to Section 1 of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, a practice that is in contradiction with fair trade practice or otherwise unfair towards other tradesmen is forbidden in trade. According to Section 2 of the Unfair Trade Practices Act forbidden in trade is also a) an untruthful or misleading statement concerning one’s own or another’s trade which is likely to have an influence on the demand or supply of a commodity or to injure the trade of another; and b) a statement that is improper with regard to its contents or manner or form of presentation and which is likely to injure the trade of another.

6.

If use "as a mark" in the traditional sense is required to establish infringement, are "well-known", "famous", "notorious" or "reputed" marks used on dissimilar goods and services protected?

According to Section 6, Subsection 2 of the Trademark Act, confusing similarity can be referred to regardless of the similarity of goods in favour of a trademark which is reputed in Finland, if the use of the symbol of another without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.

Summary

The Group has not been able to find any comprehensive definitions of use “as a mark” in case law, but only definitions of what does or does not constitute use "as a mark" under certain specific circumstances. A case-by-case interpretation of what is to be considered use “as a mark” must therefore be made according to the individual circumstances of the case.

The Group is of the opinion that the concept of use “as a mark” has been interpreted broadly in Finland. Different kinds of evidence has been admitted by the Patent Office and the courts quite liberally. For instance printed matter, affidavits of use, commercials and use on the Internet has been admitted as evidence of use “as a mark”.

Use “as a mark” is, according to the opinion of the Group, in principle assessed according to the same criteria irrespective of whether the question is of acquisition, maintenance or infringement of rights. The required intensity and quality of the use may, however, differ.

In respect of acquisition by establishment the required intensity of use “as a mark” is the most extensive. In respect of maintenance, use “as a mark” by the proprietor or with his consent must have taken place in relation to the normal scale of commercial activity pursued by the proprietor of the trademark. In respect of infringement it is sufficient that the goods are intended to be offered for sale.

Unconventional use may fall under the Trademark Act when the infringed trademark is registered or established and the trademark is used by a competitor in the course of trade.

The Group has especially noted the following:

• Use on the internet alone, or combined with other kinds of use, can under certain circumstances be considered to be use “as a mark” for the purpose of establishment or maintenance of marks.

• In case of an infringement related to use on the Internet, the rules of Finnish trademark law are applied as in any other case of infringement.

• The Group considers that the commercial use of a competitor’s trademark as a metatag may constitute trademark infringement under certain circumstances.

• Trademark infringement through linking and framing can be prohibited under the Unfair Trade Practices Act if the use is misleading or takes unfair advantage of the goodwill of another’s trademark. However, in most cases linking or framing may be considered informative use, which is allowed under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

• As commercial use is a criterion for trademark infringement, use by private fan clubs or supporters does not usually constitute trademark infringement. If, however, the fan club expands to merchandising, such activity might constitute trademark infringement.

Résumé

Le groupe n'a pas pu trouver une définition définitive de l'usage de marque "en tant que marque" dans la jurisprudence, mais seulement des définitions de ce que constitue ou ne constitue pas un usage "en tant que marque" dans certaines circonstances spécifiques. Ainsi, une interprétation au cas par cas de l'usage "en tant que marque" doit être faite selon les circonstances particulières de chaque situation.

Le groupe est d’avis que la notion de l'usage de marque "en tant que marque" a été interprétée de façon extensive. Différents types d'évidences ont été acceptés de façon assez ample par l'office des brevets et les tribunaux. Par exemple, les oeuvres imprimées, les affirmations d'usage (écrites), les annonces publicitaires et l'usage sur l’Internet ont été admises comme des évidences d'usage "en tant que marque".

Pour le groupe, l'usage "en tant que marque" est en principe décelé selon les mêmes critères sans différence entre l'acquisition, le maintien et la contrefaçon de droits. Cependant, l'intensité et la qualité exigés pour l'usage peut varier.

En ce qui concerne l'acquisition par utilisation de la marque, l'intensité exigée pour l'usage "en tant que marque" est la plus ample. En ce qui concerne le maintien de l'usage "en tant que marque" par la propriétaire ou avec son autorisation, une condition est que l'usage aie eu lieu dans le cadre de l'activité commerciale ordinaire réalisée par la propriétaire de la marque. En ce qui concerne la contrefaçon, il est suffisant que les marchandises soient destinées à être vendues.

La loi des marques peut être appliquée dans des cas d'usage non-conventionnel, quand la marque contrefaite est enregistrée ou établie et la marque est utilisée par un concurrent dans le cadre de son activité.

Le groupe particulièrement note comme il suit:

• L'usage seul sur Internet, ou combiné avec d'autres modes d'usage, peut sous certaines conditions être considéré comme un usage "en tant que marque" qui a pour objet établir ou maintenir des marques.

• En cas de contrefaçon concernant l'usage sur Internet, la législation finnoise de marques est appliquée de façon identique qu’aux autres cas de contrefaçon.

• Le groupe considère que l'usage commercial de la marque d'un concurrent comme un metatag peut être constitutif de contrefaçon sous certaines conditions.

• La contrefaçon de marque à travers les links et les frames peut être interdite sous la Loi des pratiques déloyales si l’usage peut tromper ou profite de façon injuste de la clientèle d’une autre marque. Nonobstant, dans la plupart des cas, les links et les frames sont considérés comme d’usage purement informatif, ce qui est permis sous la Loi des pratiques déloyales.

• Étant donné que l’usage commercial est une des conditions pour qu’il existe contrefaçon, l’usage par des clubs privés de fans ou des supporters ne constitue pas un acte de contrefaçon de marque. Ceci dit, si le club de fans entreprend une activités commerciale comme le merchandising, cette activité peut être constitutive d’un acte de contrefaçon.

Zusammenfassung

Die Gruppe konnte für die Rechtspraxis keine umfassenden Definitionen für eine „warenzeichenartige“ Benutzung finden, sondern nur definieren, was unter gewissen spezifischen Umständen eine „warenzeichenartige“ Benutzung darstellt und was nicht. Daher muss in jedem Einzelfall gesondert beurteilt werden, was unter den bestimmten Umständen des betreffenden Falles als „warenzeichenartige“ Benutzung anzusehen ist.

Nach Auffassung der Gruppe wird der Begriff der „warenzeichenartigen“ Benutzung in Finnland breit interpretiert. Das finnische Patentamt und die finnischen Gerichte stehen verschiedenen diesbezüglichen Nachweisen recht liberal gegenüber. So sind als Nachweise für eine „waren zeichenartige“ Benutzung z.B. Drucksachen, eidesstattliche Erklärungen von stattgefunden Benutzungen, Werbungen sowie eine Benutzung im Internet anerkannt worden.

Eine „warenzeichenartige“ Benutzung wird nach Ansicht der Gruppe im Prinzip nach denselben Kriterien beurteilt, handelt es sich denn um Einbürgerung, Aufrechterhaltung oder Verletzung von Rechten. Die Intensität und Qualität der Benutzung kann jedoch unterschiedlich sein.

Für die durch Einbürgerung erzielten Rechte wird die umfassendste Intensität einer „warenzeichenartigen“ Benutzung gefordert. Für die Aufrechterhaltung einer registrierten Marke muss eine „warenzeichenartige“ Benutzung durch den Inhaber, oder mit seiner Zustimmung im Verhältnis zum normalen Umfang der kommerziellen Aktivität des Inhabers des Warenzeichens stattgefunden haben. Für Verletzungen genügt die Absicht, die Waren für den Verkauf anzubieten.

Eine unkonventionelle Benutzung kann unter dem Warenzeichengesetzt fallen, wenn das verletzte Warenzeichen registriert worden ist oder sich eingebürgert hat und das Warenzeichen von einem Konkurrenten gewerblich benutzt worden ist.

Die Gruppe hat insbesondere folgendes festgestellt:

• Eine Benutzung im Internet allein, oder zusammen mit Benutzungen anderer Art, kann unter gewissen Umständen als eine „warenzeichenartige“ Benutzung zum Zweck einer Einbürgerung oder Aufrechterhaltung des Schutzrechts angesehen werden.

• Im Fall einer infolge einer Benutzung im Internet erfolgten Verletzung werden die Bestimmungen der finnischen Warenzeichengesetzgebung in der gleichen Weise wie in jedem anderen Verletzungsfall angewandt.

• Die Gruppe ist der Ansicht, dass die kommerzielle Benutzung eines Warenzeichens eines Konkurrenten in Form eines Metatags unter gewissen Umständen eine Warenzeichenverletzung darstellen kann.

• Eine in Form von linking und framing im Internet erfolgte Verletzung kann nach dem Gesetz über unlauteres Verhalten im Gewerbe verboten werden, falls die Benutzung irreführend ist oder einen unlauteren Missbrauch des Geschäftswertes eines Warenzeichens eines anderen darstellt. In den meisten Fällen werden linking und framing jedoch als eine informative Benutzung angesehen, die nach dem Gesetzt über unlauteres Verhalten im Gewerbe zugelassen ist.

• Während eine kommerzielle Benutzung ein Kriterium für die Verletzung eines Warenzeichens darstellt, wird eine Benutzung durch private Funklubs oder private Anhänger in der Regel nicht als eine Warenzeichenverletzung angesehen. Falls der Funklub jedoch seine Tätigkeit auf Handel erweitert, könnte eine solche Aktivität eine Warenzeichenverletzung darstellen.