*KnowRight 2010: Draft Of My Presentation

While desperately trying to somehow squeeze the aspect that ‘French coffee spreads happiness in your brain

into my presentation for tomorrows KnowRight2010 conference, I think my presentation for tomorrow is ‘pretty much done‘.

.

As IT conferences In Austria usually don’t have too many attendees and as one might be of the opinion that it is not an overly good idea to have three sessions going on at the same time, this post shall serve as a teaser to maybe convince a few more people to attend my presentation (tomorrow, 10:30 – 12:00, Session 1B, HS 62, Juridicum, Vienna, Europe), or maybe on the other side, make it easier for some to find out that they are won’t miss anythingūüėČ

.

Knowing myself that I will make changes until the very last second I don’t post the whole presentation for now, but instead I’d just like to present a few screenshots & summarize the whole presentation in a ‘nutshell‘. (An extensive German version can be found in the 2010/4 issue of MarkenR: Ott/Schubert, Fremde Marken als Keyw√∂rter – Orakelspr√ľche des EuGH als Antwort auf biblische Fragen, MarkenR 2010, 160)

.

Summary:

Title: ‘It’s the ad-text, stupid`- Conclusions drawn from the ECJ’s Google France Rulings

Topic: Keyword Advertising

– No legal certainty yet/still.

– Keyword Advertising on its own does not infringe TM-law. The content of the ad might however.

– The ECJ unfortunately doesn’t really give a clue what an ad has to look like as not to ‘adversely affect’ the TM’s function of ‘indicating origin‘.

– The reasoning the ECJ brought forward to explain that the ‘advertising function‘ is not ‘adversely affected‘ isn’t conclusive at all.

– The court indeed gave some hints, concerning the liability exemption of Art 14, but does he expect a French court to accept such subtle ‘hints‘?

– In the course of the decisions (Google France, Bergspechte) the ECJ also established a new criteria which TM-use has to fulfil to violate Art (5) (1) (a).

.

click to enlarge

In the chart above the green “tickmark” indicates that Art (5) is actually infringed.

.

click to enlarge

This chart compares the ‘Levels of Protection‘ granted by the different provisions of Art 5.

.

click to enlarge -again-

This chart should show, that –other than reported by various media sources– not all questions realted keyword advertising have already been answered by the ECJ.

.

Hopefully see you tomorrow!ūüôā

PS: Despite my slight criticism a big Thank You to the organizing team of the conference and all the people who helped with my presentation!

2 Responses to “*KnowRight 2010: Draft Of My Presentation”


  1. 1 Kai 04/05/2010 at 20:17

    Good luck tomorrow, can¬īt bei there tomorrow, sry but look forward to read about your performance here ;-9

  2. 2 GRi 07/05/2010 at 08:36

    was a nice talk!
    very informative and well-prepared.

    (and now we also know why we should always bring an extra laptop when giving a talkūüôā


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




This Satelite Doesn’t Beep But It ‘Tweets’

Please click here if you want to follow this blog on Twitter.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 95 other followers

Author’s Rights

Stopline.at

Stopline.at - Online reporting hotline for child pornography and nationalsocialist content on the internet
JuraBlogs - Die Welt juristischer Blogs
Herdict.org

Previous Posts:

RSS WIRED Epicenter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
wordpress stat

%d bloggers like this: