Le futur de la mise en œuvre judicaire en Suisse

Chaque affaire ou presque concernant une marque non traditionnelle donne lieu à des expertises et/ou sondages d’opinions qui rendent les pro-cédures longues et compliquées. Nous sommes assez loin des propro-cédures usuelles en matière de signes distinctifs où l’état de fait est généralement relativement simple et où les tribunaux peuvent la plupart du temps juger en droit sans effectuer au préalable une procédure probatoire compliquée.

Nous nous rapprochons en effet en matière de marques non traditionnel-les de procédures que l’on connaît en matière de contentieux de brevets avec nomination d’experts judiciaires pour évaluer les expertises des par-ties et répondre aux questions techniques. Cet aspect peut rallonger la du-rée des procédures, notamment en matière de mesures provisionnelles, comme nous l’avons vu ci-dessus.

Cet état de choses est loin d’être satisfaisant. Dans un passé récent, le mê-me problèmê-me s’est posé en matière de droit des brevets. Il a été résolu par la création du Tribunal fédéral des brevets, composé d’experts juridiques et techniques.

Dès lors que cette solution existe déjà, une saisine du Tribunal fédéral des brevets en matière de marques non traditionnelle pourrait constituer une alternative crédible au justiciable en sus des juridictions cantonales pour juger de ce genre de cas.

La question dépasse celle de la pure organisation judiciaire et concerne l’accès à la justice. Le législateur fédéral ferait dès lors bien de se poser cette question.

Non-Traditional Trademarks As Means to Protect Product Designs and Aesthetic Product Features:

What is the Impact of Creativity and Innovation?

Irene CALBOLI*

I. Introduction

This Essay is part of a collection dedicated to a day of studies on the topic of non-traditional trademarks (NTTMs). In my previous publications, I have addressed this topic, both as an author and the co-editor of one of the most recent collective works in this area. In this Essay, I repeat and update my previous observations on the possible negative impact of the protection of NTTMs on creativity and innovation.¹ More specifi-cally, I criticize the protection of NTTMs as an unintended consequence of several factors: a) the overly broad legal definition of what represents a trademark, leading to the protection of «every sign under the sun»; b) the vagueness of the requirement of distinctiveness, supposedly the basis for trademark protection under the current legal systems; and c) the absence of any specific legal boundaries, both in international agreements and na-tional laws, between the protection for product designs and product aes-thetic features, and the protection of trademarks.

The main critique that I develop in this Essay is that, as NTTMs generally protect product design and aesthetic product features (such as colors, pat-terns, and shapes), the protection of NTTMs may result in preventing copying similar styles and product features. In essence, granting exclu-sive rights to NTTMs may equate to foreclosing competitors and third parties from using any identical or similar product design and product

* Academic Fellow, School of Law, University of Geneva; Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law. This Essay continues my research, and updates and adapts the Chapter, Hands Off My Shapes, Colors, and Designs! The Negative Effects of Protecting Non-Traditional Trademarks on Creativity and Innovation, in:

Irene Calboli/Martin Senftleben (eds.), The Protection of Non-Traditional Trade-marks: Critical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 287–307.

1 IRENECALBOLI, Chocolate, Fashion,Toys, and Cabs: the Misunderstood Distinctive-ness of Non-Traditional Trademarks, 49 Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 1 (2018).

features when this use could lead to consumer confusion or, when NTTMs would be considered famous (or having a reputation), the use of any identical or similar sign would lead to «blurring» or «tarnish-ment» or «taking unfair advantage» of the NTTMs’reputation. In this Essay, I do not intent to support that designs and other aesthetic product features do not deserve protection at all. Instead, I support that these de-signs and product features should be protected under the laws protecting industrial designs, or design patents, as this is what NTTMs usually are:

products or product features that fit within these types of protection, when they fulfil the requirements thereof.

To exemplify my critique, I address four examples of NTTMs that are used today by fashion designers – Louboutin, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Bottega Veneta. In my view, the protection of these marks and the legal proceedings surrounding them exemplify the main problems deriv-ing from the protection of NTTMs regardderiv-ing the attempt of the holders of these NTTMs to foreclose access to styles and aesthetic elements to all competitors and third parties. In this respect, these examples highlight an additional problem: the fact that protecting as marks elements that are product design and aesthetic product features can ultimately lead to a sys-tem promoting repetitiveness and standardization in product develop-ment, rather than creativity and innovation. Taking the fashion industry as an example in this Essay, I highlight the proliferation of «trade-marked» patterns, buckles, buttons, and other product accessories and designs used by famous labels such as Gucci, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Fendi, and so forth. Many other designers in lower tiers of the fashion market have copied this technique.Yet, the resulting reliance on these standardized and repetitive product features can easily lead to less investment not only in new products and designs but also in product quality. Why invest more in new products when securing and enforcing NTTMs could allow businesses to extract value perpetually based on the attractive power of their existing NTTMs? This question is, in my view, the crux of the problem regarding the protection of NTTMs within the traditional framework of intellectual property protection.

The Essay proceeds as follows. In Part II, I review the traditional justifi-cations for trademark protection and discuss the historical difference be-tween trademarks and other intellectual property rights within the wider context of intellectual property incentives. In Part III, I elaborate on the reasons leading to the rise and growth of NTTMs. In Part IV, as I men-tioned above, I refer to four current examples of the use of NTTMs by

fashion designers–Louboutin, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Bottega Vene-ta. In Part V, I conclude this Essay and support that protecting NTTMs may hinder creativity and innovation to the benefit of the endless extrac-tion of value on product design and features that, albeit being appealing, valuable, and frequently distinctive, are not meant to be protected for a virtually unlimited period of time as trademarks but rather under the law protecting product designs.

II. A Review of the Traditional Difference Between