The entire designation law is based on the priority principle and the territoriality principle.
The priority principle means that an older sign can always prevail against younger signs, but not the other way around.[1] On the contrary: an attacker can be held liable in court for an older own designation right.[2] Art. 9(1) EUTMR makes this explicitly clear by stating that a claim exists 'without prejudice to the rights of trade mark proprietors acquired prior to the date of application for registration or the date of priority of the EU trade mark'.[3] If the defendant can therefore oppose the challenged mark with an even earlier right, the claim no longer applies. The reverse is not true: the proprietor of an earlier right can even prohibit a third party from using the mark if the third party itself has a later trade mark right.[4] The day on which the right is established, which normally determines the priority, is therefore of central importance. For a trade mark, this is normally the date of filing.[5] However, in exceptional cases, the applicant can claim a date up to six months earlier as the priority date, for example if they had applied for an identical trade mark abroad within the previous six months.
For example, someone who applied for a German trade mark on 4 March 2006 can still claim its priority six months later for an EU trade mark application. Consequently, an application on 3 September 2006 is treated as if it had been filed on 4 March 2006.
The second central structural principle of the law of designations, the principle of territoriality, states that designation rights are always limited to a specific territory.[6] The scope of protection of an EU trade mark is limited to the European Union within the meaning of Article 355 TFEU, that of a German trade mark to Germany. Consequently, the trade marks are of no help in the event of infringement abroad, subject to any import or export constellations. Worldwide trademark protection therefore requires the registration of a large number of individual trademarks.[7]
Footnotes
For more on priority, see Section 7; see CJEU C-561/11 of 21 February 2013, Fédération Cynologique Internationale, para. 39 f.; CJEU C-491/14 of 10 March 2015 Rosa dels Vents Assessoria, ref. 21; instructive example of failure to recognise the principle of priority: FCJ I ZR 38/05 of 10 January 2008 AKADEMIKS, ref. 37.
↩BGH I ZR 231/06 of 14 May 2009 airdsl, ref. 52; BGH I ZR 93/12 of 27 March 2013 Baumann I, ref. 25; FCJ I ZR 241/14 of 23 June 2016 Baumann II, ref. 29, each with further references.
↩BGH I ZR 110/16 of 9 November 2017 form-strip II, ref. 26 ff.
↩CJEU C-491/14 of 10 March 2015 Rosa dels Vents Assessoria, ref. 23 ff.
↩See CJEU C-190/10 of 22 March 2012 Génesis, whereby Germany has not made use of the option of seeking other rules for national trade marks.
↩See BGH I ZR 49/04 of 28 June 2007 Cambridge Institute, ref. 26.
↩Information on national offices and legal systems: www.wipo.int/madrid/memberprofiles/#.
↩