relevant-public
9 September 2013Trademarks

AIPPI 2013: Committee weighs in on the 'relevant public'

The decision making body of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) has recommended IP offices take a new approach to awarding certain types of trademarks.

Members of the AIPPI executive committee voted in favour of several recommendations regarding who the ‘relevant public’ is when offices decide whether to award well-known and famous trademarks, and those "with a reputation".

A well-known trademark is one that is well known among a significant part of the ‘relevant public’ and one that can be immediately recognised as relating to the products and services for which it is used.

Famous marks enjoy a higher degree of consumer recognition and, under US law, are eligible for protection against dilution to stop another company using the mark in a way that could impair its reputation.

Trademarks "with a reputation" are seen as the least well-known of the three types of mark.

The suggested changes to what the relevant public is came to the fore at the 2010 AIPPI congress meeting in Paris on protecting trademarks. There, the AIPPI committee noted that “the issue of relevant public” required further discussion.

Resolved on September 8 in Helsinki, the AIPPI proposals argue that when determining whether to award one of the three trademarks, IP offices should consider the relevant public to be “the segment of the public involved with the goods or services to which the mark applies, rather than the general public”.

However, it also adds that the ruling could apply to the general public if the mark applies to goods or services consumed by them.

The resolution is called ‘Relevant public for determining the degree of recognition of famous marks, well-known marks and marks with a reputation’ and is based on reports from 39 jurisdictions on their trademark systems.

“We looked at topics from a range of different angles and we were pleased to see reports from some jurisdictions who had not previously submitted,” Sara Ulfsdotter, assistant to the reporter general at AIPPI, told the meeting.

“Obviously the more countries who submit, the more scope you have when making resolutions,” Ulfsdotter added.

Addressing the meeting, Diana Versteeg, senior IP counsel at Netherlands-based chemicals company Akzonobel, said it was “vital” for brand owners to be given clarity when determining how their trademark will be protected.

Other proposed changes include taking into account the exposure and contact that the relevant public has to the trademark in question and the services it applies to.

The resolution was passed with 96.3 percent in favour.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk