[pp.int.general] Fake Rolex

[Reinier Bakels]

>
>    Art. 3.1(g) grounds for refusal/invalidity: trade marks which are
>    of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the
>    nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service;
>
> This must be a misunderstanding.
>
> You yourself presented here some examples of how trademarks ARE being
> licensed so as to falsely apply a reputation for quality to products
> and services which don't deserve it.
>
>    Hilton luxury hotel chain licenced its name (many years ago) to UK
>    "National Hilton" hotels, which were not nearly as luxurious.
>
>    Dutch railway stations have "Albert Heijn" convenence shops. But
>    these shops are actually run by the railway subsidiary that owns
>    the stations ("servex"), instead of "Albert Heijn", a major Dutch
>    supermarket chain. This is perfectly legal franchising. Still I am
>    cheated as a consumer. Because I hate the railway company because
>    of its arrogance and poor service,
>
> Are you saying that those practices are illegal?
>
> If they are not illegal, then the existing law does not prevent this
> problem.

There is a difference between trademarks that are by nature unacceptable, 
and unacceptable use of trademarkes that are OK by nature, but used in an 
undesirable way. The directive prevents the former, the examples are in the 
latter category.
reinier