• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Spanish Trademark Ruling Has One Side Happy, Other Side Seeing Red

December 21, 2011 by Mark Bowman (IPilogue Editor)

Mark Bowman is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Courts of Appeals of Barcelona have dismissed an appeal by the Red Cross concerning the trademark infringement of the logo of the candy company Happy Pills. As reported by the Spanish website elPeriódico.com, the court rejected the Red Cross’s argument that the candy company’s logo could be confused for the well-established symbol of protection and neutrality.

The Happy Pills logo, at first identical to the Red Cross symbol but since transformed slightly in both shape and colour due to this lawsuit, was deemed by the courts to be different enough not to confuse the trademark of the company with that of the medical organization. The three judges who presided over the matter defined the characterizing features of the emblem as “the colours used” (the red cross on the white background), and “the figure of the cross” (five equal squares forming a cross with four equal arms) and then used an objective test to determine if the average person would view the Happy Pills version as an imitation of the iconic Red Cross logo.

The judges of the court admitted that the original logo design could be confused with the iconic cross, but subsequent changes by the candy maker were enough to avoid any infringement. Spain has ratified the Geneva Convention, 1949 which states in Article 44 of the First Convention that use of the Red Cross emblem is strictly forbidden in either time of peace or in time of war, unless to indicate or protect medical units. Spanish trademark law further protects ‘famous trademarks’ (those known to the public in general, a probable category for the Red Cross symbol) in section 8 of the Law 17/2001 of December 7, 2001, on Trademarks, and includes protection outside of the area of goods and services that the trademark resides.

Canadian courts could act in a similar matter if this issue were to arise within its jurisdiction as Canada has also ratified the Geneva Convention, and additionally its trademark legislation includes a provision (section 9(1)(f) of the Trademark Act) that explicitly states ‘No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of…the emblem of the Red Cross…or the expression “Red Cross”’.

The decision by the Barcelona Court of Appeal, although logical within the area of trademarks, still allows for containers that appear to be medical in nature to display a logo that quite closely resembles that of the Red Cross (as shown in their product design here). Trademark infringement cases usually concern a detriment to the goodwill associated with the emblem of a commercial enterprise, but in this case we have a medical organization that wishes for rapid identification of their property potentially during times of incredible stress. A strong argument could be made, although maybe not within the subject of trademarks, that a larger distinction should be made between the two logos (such as a greater difference in colour).

The second half of the lawsuit requested damages for unfair competition concerning the emblem use and the unfair advantage that it gave to Happy Pills, however the courts ultimately decided that the advantage gained by the candy company was not ‘significant’ enough and instead reconfirmed the initial damages awarded at the original trial leading to the appeal.

Posted in European Union, Famous Marks, Trademarks

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Dramatic Expansion Of Patentability In The US: Google Acquired A Patent On Doodles | Amazon.com Appeal Allowed By The Federal Court Of Appeal »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736