Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Foreign Judgment
Foreign Judgment
In Case C-273/00,
Ralf Sieckmann,
THE COURT,
I - 11754
SIECKMANN
after hearing the oral observations of Mr Sieckmann and the Commission at the
hearing on 2 October 2001,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 November
2001,
I - 11755
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
Judgment
Relevant provisions
Community legislation
3 According to the first recital in the preamble thereto, the purpose of the Directive
is to approximate the trade mark laws of the Member States in order to abolish
I - 11756
SIECKMANN
existing disparities which may impede the free movement of goods and freedom
to provide services and may distort competition within the common market.
According to the third recital in the preamble thereto, the Directive is not
intended to achieve full harmonisation of those laws.
'A trade mark may consist of any sign capable of being represented graphically,
particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the
shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of
distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other
undertakings.'
I- 11757
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
…'.
National legislation
7 The Gesetz über den Schutz von Marken und sonstigen Kennzeichnungen
(German Law on the Protection of Trade Marks and other Identification Marks)
of 25 October 1994 (BGBl. 1994 I, p. 3082; 'the Markengesetz') transposed the
Directive into German law. It entered into force on 1 January 1995.
I - 11758
SIECKMANN
9 Under Paragraph 8(1) of the Markengesetz, signs 'which are not capable of being
represented graphically' are not to be registered and, under Paragraph 8(2)(1),
trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered.
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
I - 11759
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
1 1 In the section of the application form headed 'Reproduction of the Trade Mark',
required under Paragraph 8(1) of the Markengesetz and pursuant to Article 2 of
the Directive, provisions under which, to be able to constitute a mark a sign must
be capable of being represented graphically, Mr Sieckmann referred to a
description attached as an annex to his registration application. That description
reads as follows:
'Trade mark protection is sought for the olfactory mark deposited with the
Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt of the pure chemical substance methyl
cinnamate (= cinnamic acid methyl ester), whose structural formula is set out
below. Samples of this olfactory mark can also be obtained via local laboratories
listed in the Gelbe Seiten (Yellow Pages) of Deutsche Telekom AG or, for
example, via the firm E. Merck in Darmstadt.
C 6 H 5 -CH = CHCOOCH3.'
12 In the event that the description set out in the previous paragraph was not
sufficient to satisfy the application requirement under Paragraph 32(2) and (3) of
the Markengesetz, the applicant in the main proceedings made the following
addendum to that description:
'The trade mark applicant hereby declares his consent to an inspection of the files
relating to the deposited olfactory mark "methyl cinnamate" pursuant to
Paragraph 62(1) of the Markengesetz and Paragraph 48(2) of the Markenve-
rordnung (Trade Mark Regulation).'
I - 11760
SIECKMANN
1 4 The Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt refused the application for registration on
the ground that it was doubtful whether the trade mark applied for was capable
of being registered under Paragraph 3(1) of the Markengesetz and of being
represented graphically in accordance with Paragraph 8(1) thereof. Ultimately, it
was not necessary to determine whether the sign was capable of being registered
as a trade mark and of being represented graphically because, under Paragraph
8(2) of the Markengesetz, that sign's lack of any distinctive character precluded
its registration in any event.
16 The referring court found that the mark deposited would be capable of
distinguishing the abovementioned services and would not be regarded as purely
descriptive of the characteristics of those services.
17 By contrast, that court found that there are doubts as to whether an olfactory
mark, such as that at issue in the case before it, can satisfy the requirement of
graphic representability set out in Paragraph 8(1) of the Markengesetz.
I - 11761
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
19 Since it took the view that Paragraph 8(1) of the Markengesetz must be
interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 2 of the Directive, the Bundes-
patentgericht decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to
the Court for a preliminary ruling:
(2) If the first question is answered in terms of a broad interpretation, are the
requirements of graphic representability set out in Article 2 satisfied where
an odour is reproduced:
21 In support of his request, Mr Sieckmann submits that that Opinion does not deal
specifically with the present case and that the Advocate General made a mistake
in paragraph 42 of his Opinion.
22 The Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at
the request of the parties order the reopening of the oral procedure, in accordance
with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient
information or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which
has not been debated between the parties (see Joined Cases C-270/97 and
C-271/97 Deutsche Post [2000] ECR I-929, paragraph 30, and Case C-299/99
Philips [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraph 20).
I - 11763
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
23 The Court considers that it has all the information it needs to answer the
questions raised in the main proceedings.
25 By its first question, the referring court seeks essentially to ascertain whether
Article 2 of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark may
consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of being perceived visually.
I - 11764
SIECKMANN
34 It should first be recalled that, as is stated in the 10th recital in the preamble to
the Directive, the function of the protection afforded by a trade mark is in
particular to guarantee the mark as an indication of origin.
35 It is also clear from the Court's case-law that the essential function of a trade
mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product or service to
the consumer or end-user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion,
to distinguish that product or service from others which have another origin and
that, for the trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of
undistorted competition which the EC Treaty seeks to establish, it must offer a
guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have been manufactured or
supplied under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their
quality (see, in particular, Case C-349/95 Loendersloot [1997] ECR I-6227,
paragraphs 22 and 24; Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 28,
and Philips, paragraph 30).
36 The purpose of the Directive, as stated in the first and seventh recitals in the
preamble thereto, is to approximate the trade mark laws at present applicable in
the Member States and to make the conditions for obtaining and continuing to
hold a registered trade mark identical in all Member States, in order to abolish
disparities between those laws which may impede the free movement of goods
and freedom to provide services and may distort competition within the common
market.
37 The registration system for trade marks constitutes an essential element of their
protection, which contributes, in respect of both Community law and the
different national laws, to legal certainty and sound administration.
I - 11767
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
38 In that regard it should be noted, first, as is stated in the fourth recital in the
preamble to the Directive, that acquisition of the rights in a mark results, on the
one hand, from depositing and registering the mark and, on the other, from use.
However, Article 1 thereof provides that the Directive is to apply only to trade
marks which are the subject of registration or of an application for registration in
a Member State or in the Benelux Trade Mark Office or of an international
registration having effect in a Member State. Furthermore, the sixth recital in the
preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) also states that the rights in a
Community trade mark may not be obtained otherwise than by registration.
39 Next, Article 2 of the Directive provides that a trade mark may consist of any
sign, provided that it is, first, capable of being represented graphically and,
second, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from
those of other undertakings.
40 Furthermore, according to the rule laid down in Article 3(1 )(a) of the Directive,
signs which cannot constitute a trade mark are not to be registered or if registered
are to be liable to be declared invalid.
41 Finally, under Article 5(1) of the Directive, the registered trade mark is to confer
on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The exact scope of those rights is
guaranteed by registration itself.
43 The purpose of Article 2 of the Directive is to define the types of signs of which a
trade mark may consist. That provision states that a trade mark may consist of
'particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the
shape of goods or of their packaging...'. Admittedly, it mentions only signs which
are capable of being perceived visually, are two-dimensional or three-dimensional
and can thus be represented by means of letters or written characters or by a
picture.
44 However, as is clear from the language of both Article 2 of the Directive and the
seventh recital in the preamble thereto, which refers to a 'list [of] examples' of
signs which may constitute a trade mark, that list is not exhaustive. Con-
sequently, that provision, although it does not mention signs which are not in
themselves capable of being perceived visually, such as odours, does not,
however, expressly exclude them.
47 Such an interpretation is required to allow for the sound operation of the trade
mark registration system.
I - 11769
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
49 Next, the entry of the mark in a public register has the aim of making it accessible
to the competent authorities and the public, particularly to economic operators.
50 On the one hand, the competent authorities must know with clarity and precision
the nature of the signs of which a mark consists in order to be able to fulfil their
obligations in relation to the prior examination of registration applications and to
the publication and maintenance of an appropriate and precise register of trade
marks.
51 On the other hand, economic operators must, with clarity and precision, be able
to find out about registrations or applications for registration made by their
current or potential competitors and thus to receive relevant information about
the rights of third parties.
52 If the users of that register are to be able to determine the precise nature of a mark
on the basis of its registration, its graphic representation in the register must be
self-contained, easily accessible and intelligible.
I - 11770
SIECKMANN
53 Furthermore, in order to fulfil its role as a registered trade mark a sign must
always be perceived unambiguously and in the same way so that the mark is
guaranteed as an indication of origin. In the light of the duration of a mark's
registration and the fact that, as the Directive provides, it can be renewed for
varying periods, the representation must be durable.
55 In the light of the foregoing observations, the answer to the first question must be
that Article 2 of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark
may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of being perceived visually,
provided that it can be represented graphically, particularly by means of images,
lines or characters, and that the representation is clear, precise, self-contained,
easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.
56 By its second question, the referring court seeks essentially to ascertain whether
Article 2 of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of an
olfactory sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the requirements of
graphic representability are satisfied by a chemical formula, by a description in
written words, by the deposit of an odour sample or by a combination of those
elements.
I - 11771
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
62 The Austrian and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission submit
that, at the present stage of scientific knowledge, the uniform graphic
representation of odours poses considerable problems.
63 In their submissions, the mere indication of the chemical formula as the graphic
representation of an odour does not make it possible to identify the odour with
certainty, because of different factors which influence the manner in which it can
actually be perceived, such as concentration, quantity, temperature or the
substance bearing the odour. Furthermore, those elements preclude the possibility
of representing odours by means of olfactory samples.
67 As regards the deposit of an odour sample, the Austrian Government and the
Commission submit that an odour changes over time because of volatilisation or
other phenomena and that a deposit can therefore not produce a lasting olfactory
impression capable of constituting a graphic representation.
68 The United Kingdom Government states further that to allow such a form of
representation in the trade mark registers of Member States and the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) would require
considerable changes to those registers and to the systems of registration in
Member States and at the Office and, as a result, the accessibility embodied by
the existing system of public registers would be diminished.
73 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question
must be that, in respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements of graphic
representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a description in
written words, by the deposit of an odour sample or by a combination of those
elements.
I - 11775
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 — CASE C-273/00
Costs
74 The costs incurred by the Austrian and United Kingdom Governments and by the
Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recover-
able. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in
the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for
that court.
On those grounds,
THE COURT,
I - 11777