the name arsenal fc came from scotsman david danskin.
where did the name arsenal fc come from?
scotsman david danskin
na
na
at first, the ecj pointed out that reed was using a sign in the course of trade which was identical with the trade mark registered by arsenal fc. in this particular case, there is a trademark infringement. beyond that the question had to be answered whether any use of the sign of a third party would entitle arsenal fc to forbid this use. or if there must be a specific interest by the owner of the registered trade mark. in this point, the ecj made clear that article 5 (1) (a) of the trade mark directive requires for its applicability a specific interest. ensuing, the ecj pointed out, that a specific interest is constituted by violation of an essential function. the owner of a registered trade mark could only prohibit the use of an identical sign if his interests regarding the essential function of the trade mark violated. the essential function of a registered trade mark is to identify the origin of the goods. so there is no danger of confusion by the customers. a use of an identical sign in a merely describing way would not violate the interest of the owner of the trade mark. the ecj is convinced that the style of the products sold by mr. reed could lead to the impression in the course of trade, that there is a relationship between these products and arsenal fc. even the disclaimers at the stalls that the products sold by mr. reed are not official products of arsenal fc, do not lead to another estimate. following the opinion of the ecj, most of all by the time the products left the stalls they can be regarded as official products of the arsenal fc by other customers. the interesting point here is that the arguments are identical with those, which lead to the rejection in the claim of passing off. under this the decision about the claim of passing off maybe has to be reconsidered. but the ecj did not say anything about this former ruling of the high court and its arguments. going back to the case, the ecj assume to be convinced that the use of a sign which is identical with a registered trade mark is suitable to harm the guarantee of origin and therefore consequently the essential function of a registered trade mark. consequently, in this particular case, there is a violation of the specific interests of the arsenal fc by mr. reed. he used the sign in the meaning of article 5 (1) of the trade mark directive. therefore there is a trade mark infringement by mr. reed selling products, not official wear by arsenal fc, but carrying the sign of the arsenal fc.
arsenal football club vs. matthew reed