| Abstract: | Stiprus prekių ženklas, tai viena pagrindinių sėkmingo verslo sudedamųjų dalių. Prekių ženklais yra laikomi bet kokie žymenys, kurie gali būti pavaizduoti grafiškai bei kurių esminė funkcija – vieno asmens prekes ar paslaugas atskirti nuo kito asmens prekių ar paslaugų. Tačiau tam, kad ženklui būtų suteikiama teisinė apsauga, kuri padeda apsisaugoti nuo nesąžiningų konkurencijos veiksmų, prekių ženklą reikia įregistruoti nacionaliniu, Europos Sąjungos arba tarptautiniu lygiu.
Tam, kad būtų užtikrinta vienoda šalių praktika prekių ženklų registravimo atžvilgiu, 1957 m. buvo sukurta Nicos klasifikacija, sudaryta iš bendro prekių ir paslaugų klasių sąrašo, kartu su reikalingais paaiškinimais, bei abėcėlinio prekių ir paslaugų sąrašo su atitinkamos klasės nuoroda, kuriai yra priskiriama kiekviena prekė ar paslauga. Teigdami paraišką įregistruoti atitinkamą prekių ženklą, pareiškėjai dažnai nurodo tik atitinkamos Nicos klasifikacijos klasės antraštės bendrąsias sąvokas.
Iki 2012 metų birželio mėnesio klasių antraščių bendrosios sąvokos buvo interpretojamos remiantis dviem požiūriais. Pirmasis požiūris teigė, jog „klasių antraštės apima visą klasę“, o antrasis nurodė, jog „reiškia tai, kas parašyta.“ Nenuostabu, kad valstybių tarnybose skirtingai interpretuojant klasių antraščių bendrųjų sąvokų naudojimą prekių ženklo registracijos paraiškose, kilo didelių abejonių nustatinėjant tokios registracijos teikiamos apsaugos ribas. 2012 m. birželio 19 d. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teisme buvo priimtas sprendimas vadinamojoje „IP Translator“ byloje, sukėlęs daugiau klausimų nei pateikęs atsakymų.
Atsižvelgiant į tai, šiame darbe buvo siekama analizuojant minėtą sprendimą bei jo pasekoje Europos Sąjungos prekių ženklų ir dizaino paskelbtus Bendruosius pranešimus, Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentą Nr. 2015/2424 išsiaiškinti, ar norint nustatyti prekes ir paslaugas, kurioms yra prašoma prekių ženklo apsaugos pakanka nurodyti Nicos klasifikacijos klasių antraščių bendrąsias sąvokas.
Darbe buvo išsiaiškinta, jog iš visų Nicos klasifikacijos klasių antraščių bendrųjų sąvokų tik penkios nėra pakankamai aiškios ir tikslios, dėl ko tik jomis remiantis be papildomo patikslinimo nėra galimybės nustatyti kokia yra atitinkamos prekių ženklo registracijos suteikiamos apsaugos apimtis. Todėl, kaip nurodoma naujajame Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamente Nr. 2015/2424, Nicos klasifikacijos klasių antraščių bendrųjų sąvokų naudojimas yra galima, jeigu nėra pažeidžiamas aiškumo bei tikslumo kriterijus.
Strong trademark is one of the main components of successful business. Any marks, which are illustrated graphically and have the essential function to separate goods and services from another person’s goods and services, are considered to be trademarks. However in order to grant legal protection to the trademark that helps to protect against unfair competitive actions, the trademark has to be registered on the national, European Union’s or international level.
In order to ensure the unanimous registration practice of trademarks in the Special Union, Nice classification was created in 1957. This classification consists of common list of classes, necessary explanations and alphabetic list of goods and services with the reference of certain class, to which the product or service is attributed. It covers 45 classes in total. It is an often case in practice that the applicant indicates only general concepts of certain heading of the Nice Classification in the registration application.
Two approaches were predominant among the States until June 2012, which were applied to explain the usage of general concepts of classes’ headings in registration applications. The first approach is when “the headings of classes cover the entire class”, thus accordingly, when the agencies use the second approach, they “see what is written” and the headings were assessed literally. Therefore there is no wonder that big doubts arouse while setting the protection limits of registration in different countries, where the usage of general concepts of headings in the registration applications was interpreted differently. The decision of the Court of Justice in so called “IP Translator” case had an especially big influence on the approach that the situation has to be changed because of such legal ambiguity.
It was solved in the aforementioned case whether the general concepts of the heading of the class 41 “Education, Entertainment, Training, Sport and Cultural Activities” cover the translation services, as well. The prejudicial matters were used essentially to learn whether the usage of general concepts of headings of the classes of Nice Classification is possible in the application for trademark’s registration and how clearly and accurately the goods and services are identified, with regard to which the trademark’s protection is requested. Although this decision was waited in expectation to solve the problem of legal ambiguity, but actually it raised more questions than answers.
Therefore the purpose of this work is to learn whether it is enough to indicate the general concepts of headings of the classes of Nice Classification in order to identify goods and services, with regard to which the trademark’s protection is requested. The main focus is given to the analysis of general notices published by ESINT with regard to application of Nice Classification.
According to the General notification of 20 February 2014 on acceptability of classification terms for general practice v1.0, it was attempted to learn the criteria, with the help of which it should be determined whether certain term is clear and precise. It was determined that descriptions of certain goods and services are considered sufficiently clear and precise only when their protection scope may be determined according to usual meaning of their descriptions. If it is not possible to understand what the protection scope is, the sufficient precision and clarity may be achieved through identification of certain factors, for example characteristic, purpose and/or identified sector of the market. Besides, the situations may be possible that the same term is used in description of several classes. However it will be sufficiently clear and precise in one class, and completely unclear in another.
The analysis of the General notification of 20 February 2014 on execution of the decision in the case “IP Translator” v1.2 helped to distinguish three modes, on the ground of which the possibility is granted to the applicants to ensure the protection of the entire alphabetic list when applying for the trademark’s registration after the decision in the case “IP Translator”. So the applicants may fill out the declaration, to mark the field electronically or to name each concept separately. The attention should be paid to the fact that each country chooses individually whether to apply one or several modes.
In order to learn, which general concepts of Nice Classification are not clear and precise, the General notification of 28 October 2015 on the practice of application of general concepts of headings of the classes of Nice Classification v1.2 was used. It helped to distinguish 5 general concepts, i.e. concept of the class 7 “Machinery”, concept of the class 37 “Repairs” and “Installation services”, concept of the class 40 “Treatment of materials”, and concept of the class 45 “Personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals”.
In the end of the work the attention was paid to the fact that one of the essential outcomes of the case “IP Translator” was the new Regulation of the European Parliament and Council No. 2015/2424, that has replaced in part the Regulation on Community’s trademark. The new regulation contains the provision that the general concepts of headings of the classes of Nice Classification have to be interpreted literally, i.e. they cover the goods and services, which are meant literally by appropriate general concept. |
