Guillemin | Law & Odeur | E-Book | sack.de
E-Book

E-Book, Englisch, Band 80, 229 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm

Reihe: Schriften zum geistigen Eigentum und zum Wettbewerbsrecht

Guillemin Law & Odeur


Fragrance Protection in the Fields of Perfumery and Cosmetics

E-Book, Englisch, Band 80, 229 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm

Reihe: Schriften zum geistigen Eigentum und zum Wettbewerbsrecht

ISBN: 978-3-8452-7040-1
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
 Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

Perfume litigations typically involve only trademark or packaging protection. The actual perfume hardly enjoys any legal attention although it is very often copied.

The term „perfume“ is ambiguous and designates the olfactory source as well as the olfactory form of the fragrance. Different perfume formulae can smell similar while similar formulae can produce different fragrances. The study analysed the applicability of patents, trademarks and copyright to fragrances.
The Author has been advising since 2011 companies and associations of the fragrance industry.
Guillemin Law & Odeur jetzt bestellen!

Autoren/Hrsg.

Guillemin, Claire

Fachgebiete

Weitere Infos & Material

1;Cover;1
2; § 1 Introduction;24
2.1; I. Fragrance Protection Issue;24
2.2; II. Subject Matter Definition;27
2.3; III. Outline of the Present Study;29
3; Part 1: Fragrance Fundamentals;31
3.1; § 2 Perfume Through the Ages;31
3.1.1; I. Perfume in Ancient Times;31
3.1.2; II. Modern Perfumery;33
3.2; § 3 Behind the Scenes of Perfumery;36
3.2.1; I. The Flavour and Fragrance Industry;36
3.2.1.1; 1. A Handful of Powerful Companies;36
3.2.1.2; 2. The Fragrance Industry;37
3.2.2; II. Perfume and Cosmetic Brands;38
3.2.3; III. The Perfumers;39
3.2.3.1; 1. “Métier”;39
3.2.3.2; 2. Creative Process and Commercial Constraints;40
3.3; § 4 The Two Aspects of Perfume;43
3.3.1; I. The Olfactory Source;43
3.3.1.1; 1. Natural Raw Materials;43
3.3.1.1.1; a) Origin;43
3.3.1.1.2; b) Process;44
3.3.1.2; 2. Synthetic Raw Materials;45
3.3.1.2.1; a) Origin;45
3.3.1.2.1.1; (i) Nature Isolates;46
3.3.1.2.1.2; (ii) Synthesised Chemicals;46
3.3.1.2.1.3; (iii) Discoveries;46
3.3.1.2.2; b) Advantages;46
3.3.1.3; 3. Nature Identical Materials;47
3.3.1.3.1; a) Headspace;48
3.3.1.3.2; b) SPME;48
3.3.1.4; 4. The Mixture of Raw Materials;48
3.3.2; II. The Olfactory Form;49
3.3.2.1; 1. Definition;49
3.3.2.1.1; a) An Abstract Notion;49
3.3.2.1.2; b) Classification;50
3.3.2.2; 2. Evolutionary Character;51
3.3.2.2.1; a) Architecture;51
3.3.2.2.2; b) Transformation;52
3.4; § 5 Perception and Identification of the Olfactory Form;53
3.4.1; I. The Smell Sense;53
3.4.1.1; 1. Physiology;53
3.4.1.2; 2. Memorisation;55
3.4.2; II. The Question of Subjectivity;55
3.4.2.1; 1. Chacun ses Goûts;55
3.4.2.2; 2. Poverty of the Olfactory Language;56
3.4.2.3; 3. The Difficulty of Describing Smells;57
3.5; § 6 Olfactory Measurement Methods;59
3.5.1; 1. Physical and Chemical Measures;59
3.5.1.1; a) Gas Chromatography;59
3.5.1.2; b) Mass Spectrometry;60
3.5.1.3; c) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance;60
3.5.1.4; d) Electronic Noses;60
3.5.2; 2. A Doubled Edged Sword;61
3.5.2.1; a) Fine Fragrance Reverse Engineering;61
3.5.2.2; b) Proving Perfume Copies;62
3.5.2.2.1; (i) Limits of Olfactory Measurement;62
3.5.2.2.2; (ii) Sensory Analysis;62
3.6; § 7 From Fragrance Imitation to Fragrance Infringement;63
3.6.1; I. Lawful Copying of Fine Fragrance;63
3.6.2; 1. Copying as Technical Education;63
3.6.3; 2. Copying as Inspiration;64
3.6.3.1; II. Fine Fragrance Infringement;64
3.6.4; 1. Fragrance Knockoff;64
3.6.4.1; a) Characteristics;64
3.6.4.2; b) Joint Copies;65
3.6.4.3; c) Replicas of the Fragrance;66
3.6.5; 2. Fragrances with a Completely New Identity;67
3.7; § 8 Conclusion of Part 1;68
4; Part 2: Fragrances and Patents;70
4.1; § 9 Patent Protection;70
4.1.1; I. Definitions and Legal Bases;70
4.1.2; II. Enforcement;71
4.1.2.1; 1. Patent Application;71
4.1.2.2; 2. Rights under Patents;71
4.1.3; III. Patentability Requirements;72
4.1.3.1; 1. Three of Four Conditions?;72
4.1.3.2; 2. The Concept of Invention in European Law;73
4.2; § 10 The Olfactory Invention;75
4.2.1; I. Inventive Scope;75
4.2.1.1; 1. Exclusion of Aesthetic Creations;75
4.2.1.2; 2. Fragrances as Inventions;76
4.2.2; II. Formula of the Olfactory Source;77
4.2.2.1; 1. Fragrance Formula;77
4.2.2.2; 2. Chemical Formula;78
4.2.3; III. Ingredients of the Olfactory Source;79
4.2.3.1; 1. Natural Raw Materials;79
4.2.3.1.1; a) As Such;79
4.2.3.1.2; b) As Intermediary Chemical Products;80
4.2.3.2; 2. Synthetic Raw Materials;80
4.2.3.2.1; a) Classification;80
4.2.3.2.2; b) A Lucrative Business;81
4.3; § 11 Olfactory Source and Patentability Requirements;83
4.3.1; I. Novelty;83
4.3.2; II. Inventive Step;84
4.3.2.1; 1. Non-Obviousness;84
4.3.2.1.1; a) The Person “Skilled in the Art”;84
4.3.2.1.2; b) Obvious and Non-Obvious Scents;84
4.3.2.2; 2. Perfume and Technical Aspect;85
4.3.3; III. Industrial Applicability;86
4.4; § 12 Practical Relevance of Patent Protection for Perfumes;87
4.4.1; I. Formal Obstacles;87
4.4.1.1; 1. Duration of the Protection;87
4.4.1.1.1; a) Perfumes;87
4.4.1.1.2; b) Synthetic Materials;88
4.4.1.2; 2. Costs of Protection;88
4.4.2; II. Substantial Obstacles;89
4.4.2.1; 1. Necessary Technical Character;89
4.4.2.2; 2. Disclosure of the Formula;90
4.5; § 13 Conclusion of Part 2;91
5; Part 3: Fragrances and Trademarks;93
5.1; § 14 Trademark Protection;93
5.1.1; I. Trademark Definition;93
5.1.1.1; 1. Function of a Trademark;93
5.1.1.2; 2. Evolution of Trademarks over the Years;94
5.1.2; II. Legal Bases;95
5.1.2.1; 1. Community Law;95
5.1.2.1.1; a) Harmonisation within the Member States;95
5.1.2.1.2; b) Registration Requirements;96
5.1.2.1.2.1; (i) Graphical Representation;96
5.1.2.1.2.2; (ii) Distinctiveness;97
5.1.2.2; 2. International Law;97
5.1.2.2.1; a) Trademark Law Treaty;97
5.1.2.2.2; b) WTO;98
5.1.3; III. Trademark Registration;98
5.1.3.1; 1. Application Process;98
5.1.3.1.1; a) Community Application;99
5.1.3.1.2; b) International Application;99
5.1.3.2; 2. Advantages of Trademark Protection;99
5.2; § 15 The Olfactory Sign;100
5.2.1; I. Different Kinds of Olfactory Signs;100
5.2.1.1; 1. Fragrant Products;100
5.2.1.1.1; a) Naturally and Usually Scented Products;100
5.2.1.1.2; b) “Unscented” Products;102
5.2.1.1.2.1; (i) Fragrant Valorisation of Neutral Smelling Products;102
5.2.1.1.2.2; (ii) Hiding a Natural Unpleasant Smell;102
5.2.1.2; 2. Perfumed Places;103
5.2.1.2.1; a) Corporate Smells;103
5.2.1.2.2; b) Atmosphere Smells;104
5.2.2; II. From the Olfactory Sign to the Olfactory Mark;105
5.2.2.1; 1. Why an Olfactory Mark?;105
5.2.2.2; 2. The Perception Problem;108
5.2.2.2.1; a) Access to the Smell;108
5.2.2.2.2; b) Evolution and Recognition;109
5.3; § 16 The Registration of Olfactory Signs in Practice;110
5.3.1; I. Pioneering Applications in Common Law;110
5.3.1.1; 1. The First Historical Registration in the US;110
5.3.1.2; 2. Three Olfactory Mark Applications in the UK;112
5.3.1.2.1; a) The Chanel Failure;113
5.3.1.2.2; b) Perfumed Tyres and Darts Successes;113
5.3.1.3; 3. Olfactory Trademark Practice in Australia and New Zealand;114
5.3.2; II. Regressive Evolution of the Jurisprudence in the EU;115
5.3.2.1; 1. Controversial Acceptance of Olfactory Marks by the OHIM;116
5.3.2.1.1; a) “The Smell of Fresh Cut Grass”;116
5.3.2.1.1.1; (i) Acceptance of the First Olfactory Community Mark;116
5.3.2.1.1.2; (ii) The Controversy;117
5.3.2.1.2; b) “The Scent of Raspberries”;120
5.3.2.1.2.1; (i) Confirmation of the Registrability;120
5.3.2.1.2.2; (ii) Lack of Distinctive Character;120
5.3.2.2; 2. Clear Opposition by the European Court of Justice;121
5.3.2.2.1; a) The “Sieckmann” Case;121
5.3.2.2.2; b) Community Jurisprudence in the Light of the “Sieckmann” Case;125
5.3.2.2.2.1; (i) Only Few and Unsuccessful Applications;125
5.3.2.2.2.1.1; 1) “Coloured Matrix” (CTM-Application No. 521 914);125
5.3.2.2.2.1.2; 2) “Virginia Tobacco” (CTM-Application No. 566 596);126
5.3.2.2.2.1.3; 3) The “Smell of Ripe Strawberries” (CTM-Application No. 1 122 118);127
5.3.2.2.2.1.4; 4) “The Smell of Vanilla” (CTM-Application No. 1 807 353);128
5.3.2.2.2.1.5; 5) The Smell of Lemon (CTM-Application No. 1 254 861);128
5.3.2.2.2.1.6; 6) The Taste of Oranges (CTM-Application No. 3 132 404);129
5.3.2.2.2.2; (ii) A Negative Impact on National Jurisprudence;129
5.4; § 17 The Inherent Difficulties of Olfactory Signs;131
5.4.1; I. The Graphical Representation Ambiguity;131
5.4.1.1; 1. Discrepancy Between Legal Texts and Reality;131
5.4.1.1.1; a) Direct Representation v. Indirect Representation;131
5.4.1.1.2; b) Criticism as to Potential Constitutional Conflicts;132
5.4.1.1.3; c) Graphical Representation Conditioned by Flexible Interpretation of Legal Texts;134
5.4.1.2; 2. Review of the Graphical Representation Means;135
5.4.1.2.1; a) The Verbal Description;135
5.4.1.2.1.1; (i) Simple Smells;136
5.4.1.2.1.1.1; 1) Colour and Music Analogy;136
5.4.1.2.1.1.2; 2) Scope of Protection and Common-Sense;137
5.4.1.2.1.2; (ii) Complex Scents;140
5.4.1.2.1.2.1; 1) Limits of Verbal Description.;140
5.4.1.2.1.2.2; 2) Accurate Description of a Fragrance by its Name;141
5.4.1.2.2; b) Picture of the Fragrant Product;142
5.4.1.2.3; c) The Chemical Formula;142
5.4.1.2.4; d) Samples;144
5.4.1.2.4.1; (i) Invalid Means of Graphic Representation;144
5.4.1.2.4.2; (ii) Practical Issues;145
5.4.1.2.5; e) Modern Smell Recording Methods;146
5.4.2; II. Distinctiveness Issue for Fragrances;147
5.4.2.1; 1. The Smell, Substance or Signature?;147
5.4.2.2; 2. Generic Fragrances;149
5.5; § 18 Conclusion of Part 3;150
6; Part 4: Fragrances and Copyright;151
6.1; § 19 Copyright Protection;151
6.1.1; I. Definition;151
6.1.1.1; 1. Origin and Purpose;151
6.1.1.2; 2. Copyright /Authors’ Rights;152
6.1.2; II. Application;152
6.1.2.1; 1. Legal Basis;152
6.1.2.2; 2. Copyright Conditions;153
6.1.2.2.1; a) Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing;153
6.1.2.2.2; b) Existence of a Perceptible Form;154
6.1.2.2.3; c) Originality;155
6.1.2.3; 3. A Generous Protection;156
6.2; § 20 Chronology of Fragrances and Copyright Case Law;157
6.2.1; I. Short Overview;157
6.2.2; II. 1974- 1999: First Hesitant Decisions;158
6.2.2.1; 1. 3 July 1975: Rochas v. de Laire;158
6.2.2.2; 2. 6 June 1997: Kenzo and Tamaris v. Parfums Via Paris;160
6.2.2.3; 3. 28 June 2000: Clarins v. Batignolles and Pierre Cattier;161
6.2.2.4; 4. 24 Sept. 1999: Mugler v. Molinard;162
6.2.3; III. 2003-2006: A Succession of Favourable Decisions in France;164
6.2.3.1; 1. 26 May 2004: L’Oréal v. Bellure;164
6.2.3.2; 2. 4 June 2004: BPI v. Bellure et Eva France;165
6.2.3.3; 3. 17 Sept. 2004: BPI v. Bellure and Euro Media;166
6.2.3.4; 4. 23 May 2006: BPI v. Senteur Mazal;167
6.2.4; IV. 2006: Cassation Quash and Divergent Decisions of European Higher Instances;168
6.2.4.1; 1. 13 June 2006: Nejla Bsiri-Barbir v. Haarmann-Reimer;168
6.2.4.2; 2. 16 June 2006: Lancôme v. Kecofa;169
6.2.5; V. 2006-2007: Clear Resistance of Lower French Courts;171
6.2.5.1; 1. 28 Nov. 2006: L’Oréal v. Bellure;171
6.2.5.2; 2. 14 Feb. 2007: BPI v. Senteur Mazal;171
6.2.5.3; 3. 13 Sept. 2007: Lancôme v. Argeville;172
6.2.5.4; VI. 2008-2009: Double Confirmation of Cassation’s Position;173
6.2.5.5; 1. 1 July 2008: BPI v. Senteur Mazal;173
6.2.5.6; 2. 22 Jan. 2009: Lancôme v. Argeville;173
6.2.6; VII. 2009-2010: Resistance at Any Cost;173
6.2.6.1; 1. 6 April 2009: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque;173
6.2.6.2; 2. 30 April 2009: BPI v. Coscentra Sales et Autres;174
6.2.6.3; 3. 22 Oct. 2009: L’Oréal v. Bellure;174
6.2.6.4; 4. 20 May 2010: BPI v. Millenium Diffusion;175
6.2.6.5; 5. 10 December 2010: Lancôme v. Argeville;176
6.2.7; VIII. 2012-2013: Judgement and Condamnation!?;177
6.2.7.1; 1. 11 April 2001 and 10 December 2013: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque;177
6.2.7.2; 2. 11 April 2014: Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie et a.c./Pin (Pirate-Parfum);179
6.3; § 21 Olfactory Form and Implicit Copyright Requirements;180
6.3.1; I. Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing and Intention of Legislation;180
6.3.2; II. Perceptibility of the Olfactory Form;183
6.3.2.1; 1. Stability of the Olfactory Form;183
6.3.2.2; 2. Objective Description of the Olfactory Form;185
6.3.3; III. Determination and Pitfalls of Originality;187
6.3.3.1; 1. Personal Imprint;187
6.3.3.2; 2. Novelty;188
6.3.3.3; 3. Success;189
6.3.3.4; 4. Creative Process;190
6.4; § 22 Is an Olfactory Form a Work of Intellect?;191
6.4.1; I. Intellectual Activity and Know-How in Perfumery;191
6.4.1.1; 1. Perfume and Music;191
6.4.1.2; 2. Perfume and Culinary Recipes;193
6.4.1.3; 3. Perfume and Industrial Environment;195
6.4.1.4; 4. Chemists or Artists?;196
6.4.2; II. The Ambivalent Position of the Cour de Cassation;199
6.4.2.1; 1. A Devious Reasoning?;199
6.4.2.1.1; a) Introduction of a Preliminary Obstacle;199
6.4.2.1.2; b) Arbitrary Exclusion of a Style;200
6.4.2.1.3; c) Incontestable Interaction of Art and Know-How;202
6.4.2.2; 2. Or a Wise Decision?;203
6.4.2.2.1; a) Fear of Consequences;203
6.4.2.2.2; b) Limits of Chemical Senses;204
6.4.2.2.3; c) Applicability to Fragrances Opens a Wide Way;205
6.4.2.2.3.1; (i) Dangers of a Too Welcoming Right;205
6.4.2.2.3.2; (ii) Unpleasant Smells;206
6.4.2.2.3.3; (iii) Other Sensorial Creations;207
6.4.2.2.4; d) Legal Consequences for the Fragrance Industry;208
6.4.2.2.5; e) Economic Repercussions;211
6.5; § 23 Conclusion of Part 4;212
6.6; § 24 Recapitulation and Final Summary;213
6.6.1; I. Recapitulation;213
6.6.1.1; 1. Mitigated Relevance of Patent Protection for Olfactory Inventions;213
6.6.1.2; 2. The Unlucky Fate of Olfactory Marks;214
6.6.1.3; 3. The Ambivalent Negation of Olfactory Works;216
6.6.2; II. Final Summary;216
7; Bibliography;222

Ihre Fragen, Wünsche oder Anmerkungen
Vorname*
Nachname*
Ihre E-Mail-Adresse*
Kundennr.
Ihre Nachricht*
Lediglich mit * gekennzeichnete Felder sind Pflichtfelder.
Wenn Sie die im Kontaktformular eingegebenen Daten durch Klick auf den nachfolgenden Button übersenden, erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Ihr Angaben für die Beantwortung Ihrer Anfrage verwenden. Selbstverständlich werden Ihre Daten vertraulich behandelt und nicht an Dritte weitergegeben. Sie können der Verwendung Ihrer Daten jederzeit widersprechen. Das Datenhandling bei Sack Fachmedien erklären wir Ihnen in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.