Law & Odeur (eBook)

Cover 1
§ 1 Introduction 24
I. Fragrance Protection Issue 24
II. Subject Matter Definition 27
III. Outline of the Present Study 29
Part 1: Fragrance Fundamentals 31
§ 2 Perfume Through the Ages 31
I. Perfume in Ancient Times 31
II. Modern Perfumery 33
§ 3 Behind the Scenes of Perfumery 36
I. The Flavour and Fragrance Industry 36
1. A Handful of Powerful Companies 36
2. The Fragrance Industry 37
II. Perfume and Cosmetic Brands 38
III. The Perfumers 39
1. “Métier” 39
2. Creative Process and Commercial Constraints 40
§ 4 The Two Aspects of Perfume 43
I. The Olfactory Source 43
1. Natural Raw Materials 43
a) Origin 43
b) Process 44
2. Synthetic Raw Materials 45
a) Origin 45
(i) Nature Isolates 46
(ii) Synthesised Chemicals 46
(iii) Discoveries 46
b) Advantages 46
3. Nature Identical Materials 47
a) Headspace 48
b) SPME 48
4. The Mixture of Raw Materials 48
II. The Olfactory Form 49
1. Definition 49
a) An Abstract Notion 49
b) Classification 50
2. Evolutionary Character 51
a) Architecture 51
b) Transformation 52
§ 5 Perception and Identification of the Olfactory Form 53
I. The Smell Sense 53
1. Physiology 53
2. Memorisation 55
II. The Question of Subjectivity 55
1. Chacun ses Goûts 55
2. Poverty of the Olfactory Language 56
3. The Difficulty of Describing Smells 57
§ 6 Olfactory Measurement Methods 59
1. Physical and Chemical Measures 59
a) Gas Chromatography 59
b) Mass Spectrometry 60
c) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance 60
d) Electronic Noses 60
2. A Doubled Edged Sword 61
a) Fine Fragrance Reverse Engineering 61
b) Proving Perfume Copies 62
(i) Limits of Olfactory Measurement 62
(ii) Sensory Analysis 62
§ 7 From Fragrance Imitation to Fragrance Infringement 63
I. Lawful Copying of Fine Fragrance 63
1. Copying as Technical Education 63
2. Copying as Inspiration 64
II. Fine Fragrance Infringement 64
1. Fragrance Knockoff 64
a) Characteristics 64
b) Joint Copies 65
c) Replicas of the Fragrance 66
2. Fragrances with a Completely New Identity 67
§ 8 Conclusion of Part 1 68
Part 2: Fragrances and Patents 70
§ 9 Patent Protection 70
I. Definitions and Legal Bases 70
II. Enforcement 71
1. Patent Application 71
2. Rights under Patents 71
III. Patentability Requirements 72
1. Three of Four Conditions? 72
2. The Concept of Invention in European Law 73
§ 10 The Olfactory Invention 75
I. Inventive Scope 75
1. Exclusion of Aesthetic Creations 75
2. Fragrances as Inventions 76
II. Formula of the Olfactory Source 77
1. Fragrance Formula 77
2. Chemical Formula 78
III. Ingredients of the Olfactory Source 79
1. Natural Raw Materials 79
a) As Such 79
b) As Intermediary Chemical Products 80
2. Synthetic Raw Materials 80
a) Classification 80
b) A Lucrative Business 81
§ 11 Olfactory Source and Patentability Requirements 83
I. Novelty 83
II. Inventive Step 84
1. Non-Obviousness 84
a) The Person “Skilled in the Art” 84
b) Obvious and Non-Obvious Scents 84
2. Perfume and Technical Aspect 85
III. Industrial Applicability 86
§ 12 Practical Relevance of Patent Protection for Perfumes 87
I. Formal Obstacles 87
1. Duration of the Protection 87
a) Perfumes 87
b) Synthetic Materials 88
2. Costs of Protection 88
II. Substantial Obstacles 89
1. Necessary Technical Character 89
2. Disclosure of the Formula 90
§ 13 Conclusion of Part 2 91
Part 3: Fragrances and Trademarks 93
§ 14 Trademark Protection 93
I. Trademark Definition 93
1. Function of a Trademark 93
2. Evolution of Trademarks over the Years 94
II. Legal Bases 95
1. Community Law 95
a) Harmonisation within the Member States 95
b) Registration Requirements 96
(i) Graphical Representation 96
(ii) Distinctiveness 97
2. International Law 97
a) Trademark Law Treaty 97
b) WTO 98
III. Trademark Registration 98
1. Application Process 98
a) Community Application 99
b) International Application 99
2. Advantages of Trademark Protection 99
§ 15 The Olfactory Sign 100
I. Different Kinds of Olfactory Signs 100
1. Fragrant Products 100
a) Naturally and Usually Scented Products 100
b) “Unscented” Products 102
(i) Fragrant Valorisation of Neutral Smelling Products 102
(ii) Hiding a Natural Unpleasant Smell 102
2. Perfumed Places 103
a) Corporate Smells 103
b) Atmosphere Smells 104
II. From the Olfactory Sign to the Olfactory Mark 105
1. Why an Olfactory Mark? 105
2. The Perception Problem 108
a) Access to the Smell 108
b) Evolution and Recognition 109
§ 16 The Registration of Olfactory Signs in Practice 110
I. Pioneering Applications in Common Law 110
1. The First Historical Registration in the US 110
2. Three Olfactory Mark Applications in the UK 112
a) The Chanel Failure 113
b) Perfumed Tyres and Darts Successes 113
3. Olfactory Trademark Practice in Australia and New Zealand 114
II. Regressive Evolution of the Jurisprudence in the EU 115
1. Controversial Acceptance of Olfactory Marks by the OHIM 116
a) “The Smell of Fresh Cut Grass” 116
(i) Acceptance of the First Olfactory Community Mark 116
(ii) The Controversy 117
b) “The Scent of Raspberries” 120
(i) Confirmation of the Registrability 120
(ii) Lack of Distinctive Character 120
2. Clear Opposition by the European Court of Justice 121
a) The “Sieckmann” Case 121
b) Community Jurisprudence in the Light of the “Sieckmann” Case 125
(i) Only Few and Unsuccessful Applications 125
1) “Coloured Matrix” (CTM-Application No. 521 914) 125
2) “Virginia Tobacco” (CTM-Application No. 566 596) 126
3) The “Smell of Ripe Strawberries” (CTM-Application No. 1 122 118) 127
4) “The Smell of Vanilla” (CTM-Application No. 1 807 353) 128
5) The Smell of Lemon (CTM-Application No. 1 254 861) 128
6) The Taste of Oranges (CTM-Application No. 3 132 404) 129
(ii) A Negative Impact on National Jurisprudence 129
§ 17 The Inherent Difficulties of Olfactory Signs 131
I. The Graphical Representation Ambiguity 131
1. Discrepancy Between Legal Texts and Reality 131
a) Direct Representation v. Indirect Representation 131
b) Criticism as to Potential Constitutional Conflicts 132
c) Graphical Representation Conditioned by Flexible Interpretation of Legal Texts 134
2. Review of the Graphical Representation Means 135
a) The Verbal Description 135
(i) Simple Smells 136
1) Colour and Music Analogy 136
2) Scope of Protection and Common-Sense 137
(ii) Complex Scents 140
1) Limits of Verbal Description. 140
2) Accurate Description of a Fragrance by its Name 141
b) Picture of the Fragrant Product 142
c) The Chemical Formula 142
d) Samples 144
(i) Invalid Means of Graphic Representation 144
(ii) Practical Issues 145
e) Modern Smell Recording Methods 146
II. Distinctiveness Issue for Fragrances 147
1. The Smell, Substance or Signature? 147
2. Generic Fragrances 149
§ 18 Conclusion of Part 3 150
Part 4: Fragrances and Copyright 151
§ 19 Copyright Protection 151
I. Definition 151
1. Origin and Purpose 151
2. Copyright /Authors’ Rights 152
II. Application 152
1. Legal Basis 152
2. Copyright Conditions 153
a) Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing 153
b) Existence of a Perceptible Form 154
c) Originality 155
3. A Generous Protection 156
§ 20 Chronology of Fragrances and Copyright Case Law 157
I. Short Overview 157
II. 1974- 1999: First Hesitant Decisions 158
1. 3 July 1975: Rochas v. de Laire 158
2. 6 June 1997: Kenzo and Tamaris v. Parfums Via Paris 160
3. 28 June 2000: Clarins v. Batignolles and Pierre Cattier 161
4. 24 Sept. 1999: Mugler v. Molinard 162
III. 2003-2006: A Succession of Favourable Decisions in France 164
1. 26 May 2004: L’Oréal v. Bellure 164
2. 4 June 2004: BPI v. Bellure et Eva France 165
3. 17 Sept. 2004: BPI v. Bellure and Euro Media 166
4. 23 May 2006: BPI v. Senteur Mazal 167
IV. 2006: Cassation Quash and Divergent Decisions of European Higher Instances 168
1. 13 June 2006: Nejla Bsiri-Barbir v. Haarmann-Reimer 168
2. 16 June 2006: Lancôme v. Kecofa 169
V. 2006-2007: Clear Resistance of Lower French Courts 171
1. 28 Nov. 2006: L’Oréal v. Bellure 171
2. 14 Feb. 2007: BPI v. Senteur Mazal 171
3. 13 Sept. 2007: Lancôme v. Argeville 172
VI. 2008-2009: Double Confirmation of Cassation’s Position 173
1. 1 July 2008: BPI v. Senteur Mazal 173
2. 22 Jan. 2009: Lancôme v. Argeville 173
VII. 2009-2010: Resistance at Any Cost 173
1. 6 April 2009: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque 173
2. 30 April 2009: BPI v. Coscentra Sales et Autres 174
3. 22 Oct. 2009: L’Oréal v. Bellure 174
4. 20 May 2010: BPI v. Millenium Diffusion 175
5. 10 December 2010: Lancôme v. Argeville 176
VIII. 2012-2013: Judgement and Condamnation!? 177
1. 11 April 2001 and 10 December 2013: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque 177
2. 11 April 2014: Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie et a.c./Pin (Pirate-Parfum)
§ 21 Olfactory Form and Implicit Copyright Requirements 180
I. Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing and Intention of Legislation 180
II. Perceptibility of the Olfactory Form 183
1. Stability of the Olfactory Form 183
2. Objective Description of the Olfactory Form 185
III. Determination and Pitfalls of Originality 187
1. Personal Imprint 187
2. Novelty 188
3. Success 189
4. Creative Process 190
§ 22 Is an Olfactory Form a Work of Intellect? 191
I. Intellectual Activity and Know-How in Perfumery 191
1. Perfume and Music 191
2. Perfume and Culinary Recipes 193
3. Perfume and Industrial Environment 195
4. Chemists or Artists? 196
II. The Ambivalent Position of the Cour de Cassation 199
1. A Devious Reasoning? 199
a) Introduction of a Preliminary Obstacle 199
b) Arbitrary Exclusion of a Style 200
c) Incontestable Interaction of Art and Know-How 202
2. Or a Wise Decision? 203
a) Fear of Consequences 203
b) Limits of Chemical Senses 204
c) Applicability to Fragrances Opens a Wide Way 205
(i) Dangers of a Too Welcoming Right 205
(ii) Unpleasant Smells 206
(iii) Other Sensorial Creations 207
d) Legal Consequences for the Fragrance Industry 208
e) Economic Repercussions 211
§ 23 Conclusion of Part 4 212
§ 24 Recapitulation and Final Summary 213
I. Recapitulation 213
1. Mitigated Relevance of Patent Protection for Olfactory Inventions 213
2. The Unlucky Fate of Olfactory Marks 214
3. The Ambivalent Negation of Olfactory Works 216
II. Final Summary 216
Bibliography 222