The case was initially disclosed in January 2010 by several websites and AFP. One individual had filed six months before the Government mark "Hadopi" at the INPI. Indeed, with the trademark 19 May 2009, he wanted to develop its own music platform. But INPI decided to cancel its trademark. The custodian then decided to go to court.
In practice, the individual filed May 19, 2009, the INPI, an application to register the word mark for HADOPI designate certain products and services in classes 35, 38 and 45 (including online advertising on a computer network, providing access to a global computer network, email services, rental of access to global computer networks but also matrimonial agencies, funeral services, cremation services, establishment Horoscope ...).
On 30 April 2010, the Director of INPI rejected on the basis of articles L 712-7 b) and L 711-3 b) and c) of the Code of intellectual property, the application for registration of the mark considering that "the sign HADOPI was contrary to public and was likely to mislead the public about the nature of products and services covered in the registration application .
The individual decided to appeal against this decision. He explained in his brief argues that " no disturbance of public order since the sign HADOPI "is not an acronym legally enshrined" the common name of the High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet under the HADOPI acronym has no official status and the enactment of Law No. 2009-669 of 12 June 2009 creating the High Authority is after the registration request Brand .
In addition, he indicated that on the day of filing, "the sign was available, the High Authority could not do before the law, public use of the sign HADOPI " and " there is no likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public can be led to believe a relationship between the High Authority and the goods or services specified in his application for trademark registration .
In Meanwhile the representative explained that the INPI " HADOPI word, an acronym for High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet is the" common name " under which the High Authority was familiar to a wide audience, even before its creation by law. (...) Whether for an audience of consumers, the sign HADOPI evokes or suggests the public authority vested with several missions to protect rights of Internet and its use is likely to mislead the public on "a "essential quality of the services in question" in their official nature or paying an official character "and that" the registration as a trademark sign HADOPI the benefit of the state is not objectionable to the extent that the public authority that submits an application for registration covering a sign suggesting formalize the services or products considered .
Questioned HADOPI said for his part that: *
HADOPI the sign, which stands for the common High Authority, was the subject of a wide distribution before the application for registration of Mr. Renaud X, including such coverage being effected by many written articles both general and specialized.
* The misleading nature of the evidence filed by Mr Renaud X in it suggests an official character to the services or products that the sign registered as a trademark is contrary to public, the public may believe, wrongly, that the services or products emanating from the High Authority. * The sign
HADOPI could be a trademark application by the public authority charged by law with the same name of missions, including the labeling of Internet access and was therefore of interest to reserve the use of the term HADOPI, allowing the audience of the opportunity to identify actions that must be undertaken in the framework of its statutory tasks.
For its part, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence in his ruling Jan. 5, 2011 states: Whereas
it is sufficiently established before the promulgation of Law No. 2009-669 of 12 June 2009 "promoting the dissemination and protection of creation on the Internet" a very large audience was familiar with the name HADOPI they would attach to the HADOPI under development, intended to organize the protection of intellectual property rights on the Internet and create a regulatory authority, that all media (abundant elements of print being produced as pictured) have echoed the "social debate" that took place during the development of this legislation, that the law created an independent public authority called the "High Authority" which has been entrusted including a mission of "regulating and monitoring in the field of technological protection measures and identification of ' works and objects protected by copyright or related right;
(...)
HADOPI the sign chosen by Mr. Renaud X as a trade mark for different products and services is likely to mislead the public about the nature and / or quality of products and services mentioned in his application for registration ; in the spirit of broad public which was submitted to the "debate", relayed by the media extensively, on whether or not a protection of copyright on the Internet, the sign HADOPI well before the enactment of the HADOPI evoked a wide public the established by the State regulatory authority, it follows that the sign HADOPI which is filed as a trademark by Mr. Renaud X, but was narrowly attached to a device state is likely to mislead a public attention average (first reader / listener and consumer) that he was directly suggested The products and services bearing the mark or fall HADOPI emanate, in any manner, the device "official", irrespective of whether it was then being established, that the sign HADOPI filed by Mr. Renaud as X brand created some confusion with the High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet ; that Mr. Director of the National Institute of Industrial Property was therefore based solely on the basis of Article L 711 -3 c) of the Code of Intellectual Property has rejected the application for registration of Mr. Renaud X that the sign could HADOPI, May 19, 2009, be adopted as a trademark since it was likely to mislead the public about the quality of all products and services covered by the application in that it gave the impression to their possible connection to a device legal, including the establishment was then imminent "
The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling of the Director of INPI rejecting the application for registration of the mark HADOPI. HADOPI is only able to use of the term HADOPI
Source: Aix-en-Provence, 05/01/2011, Renaud X represented by Emmanuel Pierrat c / INPI, Mr. Attorney General at the Court of Appeal and High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet (HADOPI) represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum.
Author: Benoit Tabaka - http://tabaka.blogspot.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment