Садашњост и будућност услужног права (2022) стр. 495-504

АУТОР(И): Milica Šutova, Ksenija Vlaškovic

Download Full Pdf 

DOI: 10.46793/XVIIIMajsko.495S


The proprietor of the trademark has the right to prohibit the use of a protected (or similar) trademark, which may mislead consumers. It is debatable whether this notion is considered only through the prism of quantitative criteria or for its determination it is necessary to apply qualitative criteria. Quantitative criteria refer to the necessary degree of brand awareness in the trade, and qualitative ones refer to all the circumstances that can affect the good reputation of the so-called trademark reputation. The subject of research is the case law of the European Court of Justice, which will determine how the court acts in cases of trademark infringement by exploiting its reputation. To this end, the authors make an analysis of Directive 207/2009 which regulates the issue of relative reasons for refusal of registration.

According to the provisions of Directive 207/2009, the member states of the European Union in their legal solutions should provide procedures, measures and legal remedies in which way the realization of legal protection would be ensured.


trademark, distinctive character, trademark infringement, legal protection.


  • Geiger, C., Intellectual „Property“ after the Treaty of Lisbon – Towards a different approach in the new European legal order? European intellectual property review, no. 6/2010.
  • Jahn, D., Leible, S., Verantwortlichkeit von eBay für Markenrechtsverletzungen, GRUR Prax no. 14/2011.
  • Марковић, С., Право интелектуалне својине и информационо друштво, Београд, 2014.
  • Миладиновић, З., Индустријска својина, Ниш, 2007.
  • Поповић, Д., Жигом заштићене ознаке, кључне речи и оглашавање на интернету, Право и привреда, бр. 4-6/2011.
  • Fezer K.H., Markenrecht, Auflage 3, München, 2001.
  • Hilty, R. M., Jaeger, T., Kitz, V., Geistiges Eigentum: Herausforderung Durchsetzung, SpringerVerlag, München,2008.
  • Walter, М., Rechtsverletzende Website – Sperranordnung gegen Access-Provider, Medien und Recht, no. 2/2014.
  • Wick, G. R., Inhalt und Grenzen des Auskunftsanspruchs gegen Zugangsanbieter, Bonn, 2010. Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2004/48/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 29. Die Umsetzung der ,,Durchsetzungsricchtlinie” 2004/48/EG vom 29.4.2004 in Deutscland, Hoffmann Eitle, Rundschreiben 7/2008, München, 2008.
  • Judgment of the European Court of Justice: С-655/217, available at:
  • Judgment of the European Court of Justice C-324/09: Haftung von Service-Providern im Internet -L’Oréal/eBay, GRUR 11/2011.
  • Judgment of the European Court of Justice: C-70/10 Urteil des Gerichtshofes (Dritte Kammer) vom 24. November 2011, Scarlet Extended SA gegen Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), Cour d’appel de Bruxelles, available at: language=en&num=C-70/10.
  • Judgment Cartier” Жалбеног суда Енглеске и Велса, Berufungsgericht für England und Wales, Urteil „Cartier“, available at: …/3093334. Judgment of the European Court of Justice: С- 222/05 van der Weerd and Others available…/joined-cases-225.