Smell Trademarks; New Sign of significant protectable trademarks in legal system

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of law, Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D Student in Private Law, College of Law, Esfahan University, Iran

Abstract

Trademarks describe the goods or services that its owners are using sign to distinct their goods or services from competitor’s goods or services. These symptoms are so far mainly includes a range of traditional symptoms such as visual symptoms. But in the two past decades, smell trademarks also stepped into the sphere. Smell trademarks are too strong indicator of origin. This feature in these symptoms has led to manufacturers due to the use of these distinctive signs for making their goods or services of competitors. But the lack of support from these symptoms is a way to abuse the competitors openly. Hence the legal protection from these symptoms has justified. But this is a problem with the registration of marks is facing in two scope of conditions and forms, and this is opposition emerging from this legal protection new trademarks.
At the same time to support the smell trademarks are two options; 1) counterfeiting new terms and form or 2) redefining and maching the characteristics of smell trademarks on the conditions of the traditional symptoms. Hence, in this essay to be tried smell trademarks are protectable in the legal system mainly relying on the second option.

Keywords

References

  1. شمس، عبدالحمید (1382)، حقوق مالکیت بر علائم تجاری و صنعتی، تهران، انتشارات سمت.
  2. عمید، حسن (1389)، فرهنگ فارسی عمید، تهران، انتشارات اشجع.
  3. میرحسینی، حسن (1385)، فرهنگ حقوق مالکیت معنوی، جلد دوم، تهران، انتشارات میزان.
  4. میرحسینی، حسن (1391)، حقوق علائم تجاری، تهران، انتشارات میزان.
    1. Bainbridge, David (2004), ‘Smell, Sound, Colour and Shape Trade Marks: An Unhappy Flirtation?”, Journal of Business Law, 243-270.
    2. Bhagwan, Ashitha; Namita, Kulkarni; Ramanujam, Padmanabha (2007), “Economic Rationale For Extending Protection To Smell Marks”, MPRA Paper No.5604, Online at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5604/
    3. Brooke, Michael Z.; Skilbeck, John M. (1994), Licensing, England, Gower Publishing Limited.
    4. Burgunder, Lee B. (1991), “Trademark Protection of Smells: Sense or Nonsense”, American Business Law Journal,  29(3),  459–480.
    5. Churovich, Douglas D. (2001), Policy Considerations from a Practitioner’s Perspective: Scents, Sense or Cents? Something Stinks in the Lanham Act. Scientific Obstacles to Scent Marks, St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev., Vol. 20.
    6. Elias, Bettina (1992), “Do Scents Signify Source? An Argument against Trademark Protection for Fragrances”, T.M.R, 82, 475-530.
    7. Engen, Trygg (1991), Odor Sensation and Memory, New York, Praeger.
    8. Fleck, Lorraine M. (2003), What Makes Sense in One Country May Not in Another: A Survey of Select Jurisdictions on Scent Mark Registrability & A Critique of Scents as Trade marks, A paper submitted in consideration for the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy’s Student.
    9. Fhima, Ilanah S. (2005), “Trade Marks in Trouble”, European Intellectual Property Review, 71-75.
    10. Gilson, Jerome; Anne Gilson, LaLonde (2005), “Scented Racecar Exhaust: Protecting Nontraditional Trademarks, the Trademark Reporter”, Official Journal of the International Trademark Association, 95:4, 773-824.
    11. Hammersley, Faye M. (1998), “The Smell of Success: Trade Dress Protection for Scent Marks”, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 2(1), 105-156.
    12. Hawkes, Christopher H.; Doty, Richard L. (2009), The Neurology of Olfaction, Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press.
    13. Holloway, Marguerite (1999), The Ascent of Scent, 11 Sci. Am.
    14. Karapapa, Stavroula (2010), “Registering Scents as Community Trade Marks”, The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association, 100(6), 1335-1359.
    15. Karki, M. (2005), “Nontraditional Areas of Intellectual Property Protection: Colour, Sound, Taste, Smell, Shape, Slogan and Trade Dress”, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 10, 499-506.
    16. Korah, Valentine (2005), Cases and Materials on E.C. Competition Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
    17. Lands, Wiliam M.;  Posner, Richard (1987), “Trade Mark Law and Economic Prespective”, J. L. & ECON, 30, 265-275.
    18. Lindstorm, Martin (2005), Brand Sense: Build Powerful Brands through Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight and Sound, New York, Kogan Page Ltd.
    19. Marie, Aurelia (2005), Comments and Remarks on OHIM Decisions as Regards Trademark Registration Procedures, Cabinet Beau de Lomenie, online in www.bdl-ip.com.
    20. Morris, P. Sean (2012), “Guess What Gucci? Post-Sale Confusion Exists in Europe”, Val. U. L. Rev., 47(1), 1-61.
    21. Phillips, Jeremy (2003), Trade Mark Law: A Practical Anatomy, New York, Oxford University Press.
    22. Port, Kenneth L. (2011), “On Nontraditional Trademarks”, Northern Kentucky Law Review, 38(1), 1-49.
    23. Proust, Marcel (2013), “Remembrance of Things Past in Swan’s Way”, Penguin Classics, 57(1).
    24. Reimer, Erin M. (2013), “A Semiotic Analysis: Developing a New Standard for Scent Marks”, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and technology Law, 14(3), 698-728.
    25. Rodau, Andrew B. (2002), “The Choice between Patent Protection and Trade Secret Protection: A Legal and Business Decision”, J. Pat., 84,
    26. Sahay, Vatsala (2011), “Conventionalising Non-Conventional Trademarks of Sounds and Scents: A Cross-Jurisdictional Study”, NALSAR Student Law Review, 9.
    27. Sotiriadis, Bob H.; Carriere, Laurent (2000), The Statutory Protection of Non-traditional Trade-marks in Canada, A Few Reflections on Their Registrability and Distinctiveness, Amsterdam, International Bar Association.
    28. Vaver, David (2005), “Unconventional and Well-Known Trademarks”, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1-19.
Private Law
Volume 12, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2016
Pages 307-328

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics