Law & Odeur

Law & OdeurClaire Guillemin

Fragrance Protection in the Fields of Perfumery and Cosmetics

Schriften zum geistigen Eigentum und zum Wettbewerbsrecht 80

Nomos

BUT_Guillemin_2696-7.indd 1 14.01.16 16:32

Schriften zum geistigen Eigentum und zum Wettbewerbsrecht

Herausgegeben von

Prof. Dr. Christian Berger, Universität LeipzigProf. Dr. Horst-Peter Götting, Techn. Universität Dresden

Band 80


Claire Guillemin

Law & Odeur

Fragrance Protection in the Fields of Perfumery and Cosmetics

Nomos


The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de

a.t.: Hamburg, Bucerius Law School, Diss., 2015

ISBN 978-3-8487-2696-7 (Print) 978-3-8452-7040-1 (ePDF)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978-3-8487-2696-7 (Print) 978-3-8452-7040-1 (ePDF)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataGuillemin, ClaireLaw & OdeurFragrance Protection in the Fields of Perfumery and CosmeticsClaire Guillemin 227 p.Includes bibliographic references.

ISBN 978-3-8487-2696-7 (Print) 978-3-8452-7040-1 (ePDF)

1. Edition 2016 © Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, Germany 2016. Printed and bound in Germany.

This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other than private use a fee is payable to “Verwertungs gesellschaft Wort”, Munich.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refrain-ing from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Nomos or the author.


“Or, jusqu’ici, tous les beaux parfums créés ont étéoutrageusement et impunément copiés de multiples fois dès leur

apparition sur le marché.”(Edmond Roudnitska, Le Parfum, 1985)

Acknowledgements

This Dissertation was accepted by the Bucerius Law School – Hochschulefür Rechtswissenschaft – in Hamburg on 6 November, 2013. The final oralexam took place on 8 January, 2014.

Since the time I completed the original draft of this thesis in 2012 therehave been a number of developments in the jurisprudence relevant to intel-lectual property protection for fragrances. I have updated my original draftto reflect these developments, but caution the reader that, given the currentvolatility of intellectual property law in this lively area, some of the infor-mation presented here may soon benefit from additional updating.

I am very happy and grateful to write these introductory, yet valedictorylines. The encouragement, patience and support from many sides havemade this academic challenge possible and I would like to take this oppor-tunity to extend my deepest thanks to:

My advisor and first examiner, Prof. Dr. Karsten Thorn, for acceptingme on as a doctoral candidate despite his many other professional and aca-demic commitments and for giving me the freedom to choose and pursue asubject dear to me. My second examiner, Prof. Dr. Dana Beldiman, notonly for her native-speaker review of my thesis but also for her invaluableinsights regarding intellectual property and innovation law;

My thesis colleagues of the “Sylt-group,” for their tips and encourage-ment, and to all of my friends who periodically cleared my mind of aca-demic preoccupations;

All of the perfumers, attorneys, chemists and experts of the fragranceindustry who welcomed me and helped me broaden my understanding ofthis fascinating industry;

The International Fragrance Association (IFRA), and its PresidentPierre Sivac, for providing me the opportunity to apply in a professionalcapacity the expertise acquired through my doctoral studies;

Many colleagues and amiable librarians who provided me access to ob-scure articles and jurisprudence relating to fragrance and intellectual prop-erty;

My “lectors” Charles Cronin and Dr. Friedrich Rosenfeld for their pa-tience, precious advice and suggestions.

7

My family for their love and encouragement. My mother and my fatherfor supporting me in every possible way, my brothers for motivating me(“What? Still not finished yet?”), my children for being a breeze of freshair in this legal work and especially my husband Teja for pushing me to-wards excellence and always believing in me through the best and worstmoments of this doctoral journey.

I owe you all my deepest gratitude. Thank you, merci, vielen Dank!

Hamburg, September 2015 Claire Guillemin

Acknowledgements

8

Table of Contents

Table of Abbreviations 19

Introduction§ 1 23

Fragrance Protection IssueI. 23Subject Matter DefinitionII. 26Outline of the Present StudyIII. 28

Fragrance FundamentalsPart 1: 30

Perfume Through the Ages§ 2 30

Perfume in Ancient TimesI. 30Modern PerfumeryII. 32

Behind the Scenes of Perfumery§ 3 35

The Flavour and Fragrance IndustryI. 35A Handful of Powerful Companies1. 35The Fragrance Industry2. 36

Perfume and Cosmetic BrandsII. 37The PerfumersIII. 38

“Métier”1. 38Creative Process and Commercial Constraints2. 39

The Two Aspects of Perfume§ 4 42

The Olfactory SourceI. 42Natural Raw Materials1. 42

Origina) 42Processb) 43

Synthetic Raw Materials2. 44Origina) 44

Nature Isolates(i) 45Synthesised Chemicals(ii) 45Discoveries(iii) 45

9

Advantagesb) 45Nature Identical Materials3. 46

Headspacea) 47SPMEb) 47

The Mixture of Raw Materials4. 47The Olfactory FormII. 48

Definition1. 48An Abstract Notiona) 48Classificationb) 49

Evolutionary Character2. 50Architecturea) 50Transformationb) 51

Perception and Identification of the Olfactory Form§ 5 52

The Smell SenseI. 52Physiology1. 52Memorisation2. 54

The Question of SubjectivityII. 54Chacun ses Goûts1. 54Poverty of the Olfactory Language2. 55The Difficulty of Describing Smells3. 56

Olfactory Measurement Methods§ 6 58

Physical and Chemical Measures1. 58Gas Chromatographya) 58Mass Spectrometryb) 59Nuclear Magnetic Resonancec) 59Electronic Nosesd) 59

A Doubled Edged Sword2. 60Fine Fragrance Reverse Engineeringa) 60Proving Perfume Copiesb) 61

Limits of Olfactory Measurement(i) 61Sensory Analysis(ii) 61

From Fragrance Imitation to Fragrance Infringement§ 7 62

Lawful Copying of Fine FragranceI. 62Copying as Technical Education1. 62

Table of Contents

10

Copying as Inspiration2. 63Fine Fragrance InfringementII. 63

Fragrance Knockoff1. 63Characteristicsa) 63Joint Copiesb) 64Replicas of the Fragrancec) 65

Fragrances with a Completely New Identity2. 66

Conclusion of Part 1§ 8 67

Fragrances and PatentsPart 2: 69

Patent Protection§ 9 69

Definitions and Legal BasesI. 69EnforcementII. 70

Patent Application1. 70Rights under Patents2. 70

Patentability RequirementsIII. 71Three of Four Conditions?1. 71The Concept of Invention in European Law2. 72

The Olfactory Invention§ 10 74

Inventive ScopeI. 74Exclusion of Aesthetic Creations1. 74Fragrances as Inventions2. 75

Formula of the Olfactory SourceII. 76Fragrance Formula1. 76Chemical Formula2. 77

Ingredients of the Olfactory SourceIII. 78Natural Raw Materials1. 78

As Sucha) 78As Intermediary Chemical Productsb) 79

Synthetic Raw Materials2. 79Classificationa) 79A Lucrative Businessb) 80

Olfactory Source and Patentability Requirements§ 11 82

NoveltyI. 82

Table of Contents

11

Inventive StepII. 83Non-Obviousness1. 83

The Person “Skilled in the Art”a) 83Obvious and Non-Obvious Scentsb) 83

Perfume and Technical Aspect2. 84Industrial ApplicabilityIII. 85

Practical Relevance of Patent Protection for Perfumes§ 12 86

Formal ObstaclesI. 86Duration of the Protection1. 86

Perfumesa) 86Synthetic Materialsb) 87

Costs of Protection2. 87Substantial ObstaclesII. 88

Necessary Technical Character1. 88Disclosure of the Formula2. 89


Fragrances and TrademarksPart 3: 92

Trademark Protection§ 14 92

Trademark DefinitionI. 92Function of a Trademark1. 92Evolution of Trademarks over the Years2. 93

Legal BasesII. 94Community Law1. 94

Harmonisation within the Member Statesa) 94Registration Requirementsb) 95

Graphical Representation(i) 95Distinctiveness(ii) 96

International Law2. 96Trademark Law Treatya) 96WTOb) 97

Trademark RegistrationIII. 97Application Process1. 97

Community Applicationa) 98International Applicationb) 98

Table of Contents

12

Advantages of Trademark Protection2. 98

The Olfactory Sign§ 15 99

Different Kinds of Olfactory SignsI. 99Fragrant Products1. 99

Naturally and Usually Scented Productsa) 99“Unscented” Productsb) 101

Fragrant Valorisation of Neutral Smelling Products(i) 101Hiding a Natural Unpleasant Smell(ii) 101

Perfumed Places2. 102Corporate Smellsa) 102Atmosphere Smellsb) 103

From the Olfactory Sign to the Olfactory MarkII. 104Why an Olfactory Mark?1. 104The Perception Problem2. 107

Access to the Smella) 107Evolution and Recognitionb) 108

The Registration of Olfactory Signs in Practice§ 16 109

Pioneering Applications in Common LawI. 109The First Historical Registration in the US1. 109Three Olfactory Mark Applications in the UK2. 111

The Chanel Failurea) 112Perfumed Tyres and Darts Successesb) 112

Olfactory Trademark Practice in Australia and NewZealand

3.113

Regressive Evolution of the Jurisprudence in the EUII. 114Controversial Acceptance of Olfactory Marks by theOHIM

1.115

“The Smell of Fresh Cut Grass”a) 115Acceptance of the First Olfactory CommunityMark

(i)115

The Controversy(ii) 116“The Scent of Raspberries”b) 119

Confirmation of the Registrability(i) 119Lack of Distinctive Character(ii) 119

Clear Opposition by the European Court of Justice2. 120The “Sieckmann” Casea) 120

Table of Contents

13

Community Jurisprudence in the Light of the“Sieckmann” Case

b)124

Only Few and Unsuccessful Applications(i) 124“Coloured Matrix” (CTM-Application No. 521914)

1)124

“Virginia Tobacco” (CTM-Application No. 566596)

2)125

The “Smell of Ripe Strawberries” (CTM-Application No. 1 122 118)

3)126

“The Smell of Vanilla” (CTM-Application No.1 807 353)

4)127

The Smell of Lemon (CTM-Application No. 1254 861)

5)127

The Taste of Oranges (CTM-Application No. 3132 404)

6)128

A Negative Impact on National Jurisprudence(ii) 128

The Inherent Difficulties of Olfactory Signs§ 17 130

The Graphical Representation AmbiguityI. 130Discrepancy Between Legal Texts and Reality1. 130

Direct Representation v. Indirect Representationa) 130Criticism as to Potential Constitutional Conflictsb) 131Graphical Representation Conditioned by FlexibleInterpretation of Legal Texts

c)133

Review of the Graphical Representation Means2. 134The Verbal Descriptiona) 134

Simple Smells(i) 135Colour and Music Analogy1) 135Scope of Protection and Common-Sense2) 136

Complex Scents(ii) 139Limits of Verbal Description.1) 139Accurate Description of a Fragrance by itsName

2)140

Picture of the Fragrant Productb) 141The Chemical Formulac) 141Samplesd) 143

Invalid Means of Graphic Representation(i) 143Practical Issues(ii) 144

Table of Contents

14

Modern Smell Recording Methodse) 145Distinctiveness Issue for FragrancesII. 146

The Smell, Substance or Signature?1. 146Generic Fragrances2. 148


Fragrances and CopyrightPart 4: 150

Copyright Protection§ 19 150

DefinitionI. 150Origin and Purpose1. 150Copyright /Authors’ Rights2. 151

ApplicationII. 151Legal Basis1. 151Copyright Conditions2. 152

Non-Exhaustive Legal Framinga) 152Existence of a Perceptible Formb) 153Originalityc) 154

A Generous Protection3. 155

Chronology of Fragrances and Copyright Case Law§ 20 156

Short OverviewI. 1561974- 1999: First Hesitant DecisionsII. 157

3 July 1975: Rochas v. de Laire1. 1576 June 1997: Kenzo and Tamaris v. Parfums Via Paris2. 15928 June 2000: Clarins v. Batignolles and Pierre Cattier3. 16024 Sept. 1999: Mugler v. Molinard4. 161

2003-2006: A Succession of Favourable Decisions in FranceIII. 16326 May 2004: L’Oréal v. Bellure1. 1634 June 2004: BPI v. Bellure et Eva France2. 16417 Sept. 2004: BPI v. Bellure and Euro Media3. 16523 May 2006: BPI v. Senteur Mazal4. 166

2006: Cassation Quash and Divergent Decisions of EuropeanHigher Instances

IV.167

13 June 2006: Nejla Bsiri-Barbir v. Haarmann-Reimer1. 16716 June 2006: Lancôme v. Kecofa2. 168

Table of Contents

15

2006-2007: Clear Resistance of Lower French CourtsV. 17028 Nov. 2006: L’Oréal v. Bellure1. 17014 Feb. 2007: BPI v. Senteur Mazal2. 17013 Sept. 2007: Lancôme v. Argeville3. 1712008-2009: Double Confirmation of Cassation’s PositionVI

. 1721 July 2008: BPI v. Senteur Mazal1. 17222 Jan. 2009: Lancôme v. Argeville2. 172

2009-2010: Resistance at Any CostVII. 1726 April 2009: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque1. 17230 April 2009: BPI v. Coscentra Sales et Autres2. 17322 Oct. 2009: L’Oréal v. Bellure3. 17320 May 2010: BPI v. Millenium Diffusion4. 17410 December 2010: Lancôme v. Argeville5. 175

2012-2013: Judgement and Condamnation!?VIII. 17611 April 2001 and 10 December 2013: Lancôme v. PatriceFarque

1.176

11 April 2014: Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie eta.c./Pin (Pirate-Parfum)

2.178

Olfactory Form and Implicit Copyright Requirements§ 21 179

Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing and Intention of LegislationI. 179Perceptibility of the Olfactory FormII. 182

Stability of the Olfactory Form1. 182Objective Description of the Olfactory Form2. 184

Determination and Pitfalls of OriginalityIII. 186Personal Imprint1. 186Novelty2. 187Success3. 188Creative Process4. 189

Is an Olfactory Form a Work of Intellect?§ 22 190

Intellectual Activity and Know-How in PerfumeryI. 190Perfume and Music1. 190Perfume and Culinary Recipes2. 192Perfume and Industrial Environment3. 194Chemists or Artists?4. 195

Table of Contents

16

The Ambivalent Position of the Cour de CassationII. 198A Devious Reasoning?1. 198

Introduction of a Preliminary Obstaclea) 198Arbitrary Exclusion of a Styleb) 199Incontestable Interaction of Art and Know-Howc) 201

Or a Wise Decision?2. 202Fear of Consequencesa) 202Limits of Chemical Sensesb) 203Applicability to Fragrances Opens a Wide Wayc) 204

Dangers of a Too Welcoming Right(i) 204Unpleasant Smells(ii) 205Other Sensorial Creations(iii) 206

Legal Consequences for the Fragrance Industryd) 207Economic Repercussionse) 210


Recapitulation and Final Summary§ 24 212

RecapitulationI. 212Mitigated Relevance of Patent Protection for OlfactoryInventions

1.212

The Unlucky Fate of Olfactory Marks2. 213The Ambivalent Negation of Olfactory Works3. 215

Final SummaryII. 215

Bibliography 221

Table of Contents

17

Table of Abbreviations

Art. ArticleAU AustraliaBGH Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)BOA Board of AppealBPI Beauté Prestige InternationalBPatG Bundespatentgericht (Germany)CA Cour d’appel (France)Cass. civ. Cour de Cassation, chambre civile (France)Cass. com. Cour de Cassation, chambre commerciale (France)CEO Chief Executive OfficerCh. Chambre (Chamber)CPI Code de la Propriété IntellectuelleCSUSA Journal Journal of the Copyright Society of the USACTM Community Trade MarkD. Recueil DallozDE GermanyEC European CommunityECJ European Court of Justicee.g. for exampleEIPR European Intellectual Property ReviewEP European PatentEPC European Patent Convention (Munich Convention)EPO European Patent OfficeEU European UnionFR FranceGaz. Pal. Gazette du PalaisGC Gas ChromatographyGRUR Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und UrheberrechtGRUR Int. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, interna-

tionaler TeilHPLC High Performance Liquid Chromatography

19

HR Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competi-

tion LawIDEA IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law ReviewIFF International Flavors and FragrancesINPI Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (France)IR InfraredISIPCA Institut Supérieur du Parfum de la Cosmétique et de l’Aro-

matique AlimentaireJCP Juris-Classeur Périodique (La Semaine Juridique)JDI Journal du Droit InternationalLMZ Lebensmittel ZeitungLPA Les Petites AffichesMarkenR MarkenRecht ZeitschriftMarqIntellPropLRev Marquette Intellectual Property Law ReviewMS Mass SpectometryMittdtPatA. Mitteilungen der deutschen PatentanwälteNo. NumberNMR Nuclear Magnetic ResonanceNZ New ZealandOHIM Office for Harmonization in the Internal Marketp. /pp. Page /pagespara. ParagraphP&F Perfumer & Flavorist MagazinePIBD Propriété Industrielle Bulletin DocumentairePropr. Intell. Propriétés IntellectuellesRDPI Revue du Droit de la Propriété IntellectuelleRIDA Revue Internationale de Droit d’AuteurRIPIA Revue Internationale de la Propriété Industrielle et Artis-

tiqueRJJ Revue Jurassienne de JurisprudenceRLDC Revue Lamy de Droit CivilRRJ Revue de la Recherche JuridiqueRSJ Revue Suisse de JurisprudenceSCF Super Critical FluidSPME Solid Phase Micro Extraction


20

T.com Tribunal de commerce (France)TGI Tribunal de grande instance (France)TMR The Trademark ReporterTTAB Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (United States)USPTO United States Patent and Trademark OfficeUK United KingdomUS United StatesUV Ultravioletv. VersusVol. VolumeWIPO World Intellectual Property OrganisationWIPO Mag. World Intellectual Property Organisation MagazineWiWo WirtschaftswocheWRP Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis


21

Law & Odeur

Documents

Transcript of Law & Odeur