El color per se como marca es una posibilidad que brindan en el mundo de los signos.
No existe en el derecho uruguayo, como no existe en el Derecho Comparado latinoamericano marcario, pero en Europa y en USA es una realidad hace varios años. Entiendo que es correcta esa posición.
Obviamente, para que el color sea marca debe seguir iguales parámetros de exigencia de aptitud distintiva y demás, que los establecidos para el resto de los signos, aunque adaptados al caso.
En este caso, el uso difundido de dicho color en el ámbito de la competencia de este operador no hizo posible la admisión como marca.
"Sir John Mummery, writing the judgment for the court, found that the mark "lacks the required clarity, precision, self-containment, durability and objectivity to qualify for registration," and that to allow it "would offend against the principle of certainty." It would also, Mummery said, give "a competitive advantage to Cadbury and by putting Nestlé and its other competitors at a disadvantage."
The court found that while Cadbury could have successfully registered a mark for the colour, its description was drafted too broadly, effectively to cover multiple "signs". As well as claiming the colour to cover the whole packaging of a product, Cadbury also claimed it as "being the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface" of the product.
"The use of the word 'predominant' opens the door to a multitude of different visual forms as a result of its implied reference to other colours and other visual material not displayed or described in the application and over which the colour purple may predominate," Mummery said. "It is an application for the registration of a shade of colour 'plus' other material.""
-----------------------------
Beatriz Bugallo
Beatriz Bugallo
"El buen ciudadano es aquel que no puede tolerar en su patria un poder que pretenda hacerse superior a las leyes.", Cicerón
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario