Keyword: Merkenrecht

Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law external link

Senftleben, M.
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, num: 4, pp: 567-603, 2022

Abstract

The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce – a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.

Merkenrecht

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01182-x}, year = {0412}, date = {2022-04-12}, journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law }, volume = {53}, number = {4}, pages = {567-603}, abstract = {The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce – a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.}, keywords = {Merkenrecht}, }

No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain – A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal external link

Senftleben, M.
GRUR International, vol. 71, num: 1, pp: 3-17, 2022

Abstract

With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.

frontpage, kunst, Merkenrecht, publiek domein

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain – A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/1/3/6349172 https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/grurint_2022_1.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab107}, year = {0111}, date = {2022-01-11}, journal = {GRUR International}, volume = {71}, number = {1}, pages = {3-17}, abstract = {With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.}, keywords = {frontpage, kunst, Merkenrecht, publiek domein}, }

Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector download

Senftleben, M.
Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, Series: Information Law Series, pp: 233-247, ISBN: 9789403537337

Intellectuele eigendom, Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht, sports

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/sacrificing-the-gods-on-the-altar-of-sports-the-redefinition-of-cultural-symbols-in-the-sports-sector/ils46_senftleben/}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-11-30}, keywords = {Intellectuele eigendom, Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht, sports}, }

Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law external link

Sakulin, W.
2011, Series: Information Law Series, ISBN: 9789041134158

Abstract

Trademark law grants right holders an exclusive right to prevent third parties from using a sign. This can readily be seen as the antithesis of freedom of expression, which arguably includes a right of third parties to non-exclusive use of a sign for a variety of purposes, ranging from informing consumers, to voicing criticism or to artistic expression. Drawing on cultural theory – which has shown that society is involved in a constant struggle about shaping the meaning of signs (including trademarks) – this highly original and provocative book contends that trademark law fails to sufficiently differentiate between commercial purpose and the social, political, or cultural meanings carried by one and the same sign. The author shows that the ‘functional approach’ to justifying trademark rights taken in current jurisprudence and doctrine is deficient, in that it does not take sufficient account of the fact that trademark rights can restrict the freedom of expression of third parties. Specifically, the exercise of rights granted under the European Trademark Regulation and the national trademark rights harmonized by the European Trademark Directive can cause a disproportionate impairment of the freedom of commercial and non-commercial expression of third parties as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Book{ILS22, title = {Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law}, author = {Sakulin, W.}, url = {https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1515239/75293_thesis.pdf}, year = {2011}, date = {2011-01-01}, abstract = {Trademark law grants right holders an exclusive right to prevent third parties from using a sign. This can readily be seen as the antithesis of freedom of expression, which arguably includes a right of third parties to non-exclusive use of a sign for a variety of purposes, ranging from informing consumers, to voicing criticism or to artistic expression. Drawing on cultural theory – which has shown that society is involved in a constant struggle about shaping the meaning of signs (including trademarks) – this highly original and provocative book contends that trademark law fails to sufficiently differentiate between commercial purpose and the social, political, or cultural meanings carried by one and the same sign. The author shows that the ‘functional approach’ to justifying trademark rights taken in current jurisprudence and doctrine is deficient, in that it does not take sufficient account of the fact that trademark rights can restrict the freedom of expression of third parties. Specifically, the exercise of rights granted under the European Trademark Regulation and the national trademark rights harmonized by the European Trademark Directive can cause a disproportionate impairment of the freedom of commercial and non-commercial expression of third parties as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).}, keywords = {Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }

The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity

Senftleben, M.
Kluwer Law International, 2020, Series: Information Law Series, ISBN: 9789403523705

Abstract

The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.

Auteursrecht, Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht

Bibtex

Book{nokey, title = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-12}, number = {44}, abstract = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht}, }

The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat – Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research external link

Senftleben, M. & Horen, F. van
The Trademark Reporter, vol. 111, num: 4, pp: 739-777, 2021

Abstract

The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies – aiming at a modest degree of similarity – may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated. To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.

Advertising, blurring, conceptual marks, confusion, consumer perception, copycat brands, dilution, empirical legal studies, freedom of competition, frontpage, marketing research, Merkenrecht, new types of marks, similarity, tarnishment, trademark infringement, type of imitation, Unfair competition, unfair free-riding

Bibtex

Article{Senftleben2021b, title = {The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat – Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Horen, F. van}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3922568 https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TheTrademarkReporter_2021_4.pdf}, year = {1001}, date = {2021-10-01}, journal = {The Trademark Reporter}, volume = {111}, number = {4}, pages = {739-777}, abstract = {The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies – aiming at a modest degree of similarity – may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated. To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.}, keywords = {Advertising, blurring, conceptual marks, confusion, consumer perception, copycat brands, dilution, empirical legal studies, freedom of competition, frontpage, marketing research, Merkenrecht, new types of marks, similarity, tarnishment, trademark infringement, type of imitation, Unfair competition, unfair free-riding}, }

Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement – Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions? external link

Senftleben, M.
1126, pp: 381-403

Abstract

The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law. The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products. As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.

algorithmic enforcement, confusion, Content moderation, descriptive use, dilution, exhaustion of trademark rights, filtering obligations, free movement of goods and services, freedom of commercial expression, freedom of competition, frontpage, market transparency, Merkenrecht, parallel imports, platform economy

Bibtex

Chapter{Senftleben2020g, title = {Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement – Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919 https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138}, year = {1126}, date = {2020-11-26}, abstract = {The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law. The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products. As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.}, keywords = {algorithmic enforcement, confusion, Content moderation, descriptive use, dilution, exhaustion of trademark rights, filtering obligations, free movement of goods and services, freedom of commercial expression, freedom of competition, frontpage, market transparency, Merkenrecht, parallel imports, platform economy}, }

Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection – Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU external link

Senftleben, M.
1126, pp: 209-225

Abstract

In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks. The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.

depletion theory, distinctive character, eu-recht, freedom of competition, frontpage, functionality doctrine, harmonization in the EU, Merkenrecht, need to keep free, non-traditional types of marks, proof of acquired distinctive character, retroactive effect, secondary meaning, Trademark law, trademark law reform

Bibtex

Chapter{Senftleben2020f, title = {Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection – Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753 https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014}, year = {1126}, date = {2020-11-26}, abstract = {In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks. The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.}, keywords = {depletion theory, distinctive character, eu-recht, freedom of competition, frontpage, functionality doctrine, harmonization in the EU, Merkenrecht, need to keep free, non-traditional types of marks, proof of acquired distinctive character, retroactive effect, secondary meaning, Trademark law, trademark law reform}, }