It is always interesting to see how the protection afforded by the various intellectual property rights fits together. Copyright and design rights are often invoked in parallel, particularly in relation to works of applied art [e.g. IPKat here]. This time, this Kat has found a recent decision issued by the Tribunal Judiciaire of Paris in a dispute concerning both copyright and trade mark infringement.
El TORO LOCO can often be seen in those events.
Feld Motor Sports Inc. noted that the company H Z was also organizing monster trucks shows displayed on its website and social networks. Those shows featured a monster truck named “EI TORO Del FUEGO”.
In July 2019, a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the company H Z without much effect. On 20 April 2022, Feld Motor Sports brought a claim against the company H Z for trade mark and copyright infringement before the Tribunal judiciaire of Paris.
Trade mark infringement
The court began its analysis by upholding the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's trade mark on the grounds that “the sign El TORO LOCO, consisting of a combination of words written in Spanish, was an arbitrary choice of designation that was not dictated by the characteristics of the services, the presentations of vehicles disguised as monster trucks and the goods that the
trade mark designates”. This analysis is in line with T-157/08, Paroc, [50].
The court then dismissed the application for revocation on the grounds of non-use within the meaning of Articles 18 and 58(a) EUTMR 2017/1001. Analysing evidence of use, the court was able to confirm the genuine use of “El TORO LOCO” trade mark. The presence of the monster truck under the “El TORO LOCO” sign at numerous performances and events in various EU Member States since 2001 was the main proof of use. Such an assessment process seems consistent with T-418/03, LA MER, [54] and T-434/09, Centrotherm, [25].
Infringement assessment
Relying on both Article 9 EUTMR 2017/1001 and Article L-717-1 of the French Code of Intellectual Property (CPI), the court proceeded to the comparison of the two signs.
Relevant public
The court found that the relevant public consisted of the public who watch entertainment featuring monster truck competitions and consumers of miniature monster trucks.
Visual similarity
The court underlined that the two signs have two identical catchphrase elements, namely "EI TORO", but differ in their final element. In this regard, the court noted that "the relevant public attaches preponderant importance to the sign's catchphrase and will be more sensitive to it".
Phonetic similarity
Both signs consist of a sequence of words in Spanish. The court noted that, while the first two words were identical, the number of syllables differed, creating a different rhythm. As a result, the court rightfully concluded that the overall impression was close but not similar.
Conceptual similarity
The signs both consist of a series of words in Spanish forming a whole with meaning. Although the court erred in pointing out that the common central element was "LOCO" and not "TORO", that term would be understood by the majority of the French public as it is remarkably close to the French word "taureau" (bull). Th public would therefore make the link with this mammal and bullfighting (“tauromachie” in French), which originated in Spain. The court therefore deduced a strong conceptual similarity.
In the end, by confirming the existence of a likelihood of confusion, the court held that H Z had infringed the trade mark "EI TORO LOCO". Indeed, because of the distinctiveness of “El TORO LOCO”, the identity of the services concerned [class 41], the conceptual similarity between the two signs, the public will attribute a common origin to the products and services concerned.
Copyright infringement
Relying explicitly on article L- 111-1 of the CPI, the court began its analysis by stressing the well-established principle that the protection of a work of the mind is acquired as a result of the creation of an original form, in the sense that it bears the imprint of the personality of its author and is not the banal repetition of a common background that cannot be appropriated. The court then added that it is up to the person claiming copyright protection to spell out the contours of its originality. This position is nothing new and is in line with well-established case law [IPKAT here, here and here].
Thus, the court proceeded to assess the demonstration of originality of the "EI TORO LOCO" monster truck. Upholding the arguments of the plaintiff, the court emphasised that “the combination of different bodywork elements representing a "raging" bull reveals arbitrary aesthetic choices by the author and is not the result of an obligation dictated by the vehicle's function”. This passage appears to be a non-explicit reference to CJEU case law (Football Dataco, C-604/10, at [39]). Elements such as the fact that “the vehicle has been reworked so that its appearance can be likened to that of an enraged bull, the wings have been placed so as to reveal an apparent jaw and teeth, giving an impression of aggressiveness and brute force”, are all elements that make it possible to characterise the originality of the work [IPKAT on originality here, here or here].
Therefore, as H Z's monster truck reproduced the combination of the specific and original features of the plaintiffs' monster truck, the court validly held that this was an infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright.
It might also have been worth taking action for infringement of copyright in the name “El TORO LOCO”. The court also specified that the assessment of copyright infringement did not require proof of a likelihood of confusion. This obvious reminder may seem pedagogical in the context of a dispute involving both trade mark and copyright infringement. It should be remembered that, although each of these rights may coexist in the same dispute, they are subject to their own requirements and rules.
 |
| A Kat on a monster-truck |
Facts
Feld Motor Sports Inc. is the organizer of televised motor sport events called "Monster Jam". Feld Motor Sports is also the owner of the word EUTM "El TORO LOCO" (No. 006995898) designating, in class 28, "die-cast trucks (toys), model trucks (toys) and collector trucks (toys)" and, in class 41, "entertainment services in the form of competitions and presentations of monster trucks".El TORO LOCO can often be seen in those events.
Feld Motor Sports Inc. noted that the company H Z was also organizing monster trucks shows displayed on its website and social networks. Those shows featured a monster truck named “EI TORO Del FUEGO”.
In July 2019, a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the company H Z without much effect. On 20 April 2022, Feld Motor Sports brought a claim against the company H Z for trade mark and copyright infringement before the Tribunal judiciaire of Paris.
.jpg) |
| El Toro Loco |
Analysis
To settle this dispute, the court divided its ruling into two main parts. The court first tackled trademark infringement. Then it addressed the copyright infringement claim.Trade mark infringement
The court began its analysis by upholding the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's trade mark on the grounds that “the sign El TORO LOCO, consisting of a combination of words written in Spanish, was an arbitrary choice of designation that was not dictated by the characteristics of the services, the presentations of vehicles disguised as monster trucks and the goods that the
trade mark designates”. This analysis is in line with T-157/08, Paroc, [50].
The court then dismissed the application for revocation on the grounds of non-use within the meaning of Articles 18 and 58(a) EUTMR 2017/1001. Analysing evidence of use, the court was able to confirm the genuine use of “El TORO LOCO” trade mark. The presence of the monster truck under the “El TORO LOCO” sign at numerous performances and events in various EU Member States since 2001 was the main proof of use. Such an assessment process seems consistent with T-418/03, LA MER, [54] and T-434/09, Centrotherm, [25].
Infringement assessment
Relying on both Article 9 EUTMR 2017/1001 and Article L-717-1 of the French Code of Intellectual Property (CPI), the court proceeded to the comparison of the two signs.
Relevant public
The court found that the relevant public consisted of the public who watch entertainment featuring monster truck competitions and consumers of miniature monster trucks.
Visual similarity
The court underlined that the two signs have two identical catchphrase elements, namely "EI TORO", but differ in their final element. In this regard, the court noted that "the relevant public attaches preponderant importance to the sign's catchphrase and will be more sensitive to it".
Phonetic similarity
Both signs consist of a sequence of words in Spanish. The court noted that, while the first two words were identical, the number of syllables differed, creating a different rhythm. As a result, the court rightfully concluded that the overall impression was close but not similar.
Conceptual similarity
The signs both consist of a series of words in Spanish forming a whole with meaning. Although the court erred in pointing out that the common central element was "LOCO" and not "TORO", that term would be understood by the majority of the French public as it is remarkably close to the French word "taureau" (bull). Th public would therefore make the link with this mammal and bullfighting (“tauromachie” in French), which originated in Spain. The court therefore deduced a strong conceptual similarity.
In the end, by confirming the existence of a likelihood of confusion, the court held that H Z had infringed the trade mark "EI TORO LOCO". Indeed, because of the distinctiveness of “El TORO LOCO”, the identity of the services concerned [class 41], the conceptual similarity between the two signs, the public will attribute a common origin to the products and services concerned.
Copyright infringement
Relying explicitly on article L- 111-1 of the CPI, the court began its analysis by stressing the well-established principle that the protection of a work of the mind is acquired as a result of the creation of an original form, in the sense that it bears the imprint of the personality of its author and is not the banal repetition of a common background that cannot be appropriated. The court then added that it is up to the person claiming copyright protection to spell out the contours of its originality. This position is nothing new and is in line with well-established case law [IPKAT here, here and here].
Thus, the court proceeded to assess the demonstration of originality of the "EI TORO LOCO" monster truck. Upholding the arguments of the plaintiff, the court emphasised that “the combination of different bodywork elements representing a "raging" bull reveals arbitrary aesthetic choices by the author and is not the result of an obligation dictated by the vehicle's function”. This passage appears to be a non-explicit reference to CJEU case law (Football Dataco, C-604/10, at [39]). Elements such as the fact that “the vehicle has been reworked so that its appearance can be likened to that of an enraged bull, the wings have been placed so as to reveal an apparent jaw and teeth, giving an impression of aggressiveness and brute force”, are all elements that make it possible to characterise the originality of the work [IPKAT on originality here, here or here].
Therefore, as H Z's monster truck reproduced the combination of the specific and original features of the plaintiffs' monster truck, the court validly held that this was an infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright.
It might also have been worth taking action for infringement of copyright in the name “El TORO LOCO”. The court also specified that the assessment of copyright infringement did not require proof of a likelihood of confusion. This obvious reminder may seem pedagogical in the context of a dispute involving both trade mark and copyright infringement. It should be remembered that, although each of these rights may coexist in the same dispute, they are subject to their own requirements and rules.
“El TORO LOCO”: when a Monster truck show amounts to both trade mark and copyright infringement
Reviewed by Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot
on
Thursday, February 29, 2024
Rating:
Reviewed by Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot
on
Thursday, February 29, 2024
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn ![[Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggxDO6mW5r4n3-06Af5ckmIaMIhzgPJBoDP8AUsSYXY2zajUQt1ObGVn_GhCgidbG_YDVnybQuJ5XoAjjBG9Ws2xJWDQHNPMrLkn526SWIG371X_Kjt1E8tJmn8Ae_20Phyphenhyphen09JeuUOhhTR3aZE9lMRQlqHGQGcAWGxlo91rrKcLk0AfUjWCvw6RQ/s72-c/Two-cats-eating.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html