Law &amp; Odeur

Claire Guillemin LL.M.

doi:10.5771/9783845270401

Summary

Parfumstreitigkeiten betreffen in der Regel lediglich Namen oder Verpackungen. Das eigentliche Parfum erhält kaum rechtliche Aufmerksamkeit obwohl es sehr oft kopiert wird.

Der Begriff "Parfum" ist zweideutig, da er sowohl die Duftquelle als auch die Duftwirkung bezeichnet. Unterschiedliche Parfumformeln können gleich riechen und ähnliche Formeln unterschiedliche Düfte produzieren.

Die Arbeit befasst sich mit der Anwendbarkeit von Patent-, Marken- und Urheberrechtsschutz auf Düfte.

Die Autorin berät seit 2011 als Fachexpertin Unternehmen und Verbände der Duftindustrie.

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2016
Publication date: 02.02.2016
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-2696-7
ISBN-Online: 978-3-8452-7040-1
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Schriften zum geistigen Eigentum und zum Wettbewerbsrecht
Volume: 80
Language: English
Pages: 220
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 22
1. I. Fragrance Protection Issue No access
2. II. Subject Matter Definition No access
3. III. Outline of the Present Study No access
1. 1. I. Perfume in Ancient Times No access
  2. II. Modern Perfumery No access
2. 1. 1. 1. A Handful of Powerful Companies No access
    2. 2. The Fragrance Industry No access
  2. II. Perfume and Cosmetic Brands No access
  3. 1. 1. “Métier” No access
    2. 2. Creative Process and Commercial Constraints No access
3. 1. 1. 1. a) Origin No access
      2. b) Process No access
    2. 1. (i) Nature Isolates No access
        (ii) Synthesised Chemicals No access
        (iii) Discoveries No access
      2. b) Advantages No access
    3. 1. a) Headspace No access
      2. b) SPME No access
    4. 4. The Mixture of Raw Materials No access
  2. 1. 1. a) An Abstract Notion No access
      2. b) Classification No access
    2. 1. a) Architecture No access
      2. b) Transformation No access
4. 1. 1. 1. Physiology No access
    2. 2. Memorisation No access
  2. 1. 1. Chacun ses Goûts No access
    2. 2. Poverty of the Olfactory Language No access
    3. 3. The Difficulty of Describing Smells No access
5. 1. 1. a) Gas Chromatography No access
    2. b) Mass Spectrometry No access
    3. c) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance No access
    4. d) Electronic Noses No access
  2. 1. a) Fine Fragrance Reverse Engineering No access
    2. 1. (i) Limits of Olfactory Measurement No access
      2. (ii) Sensory Analysis No access
6. 1. I. Lawful Copying of Fine Fragrance No access
  2. 1. Copying as Technical Education No access
  3. 1. II. Fine Fragrance Infringement No access
  4. 1. a) Characteristics No access
    2. b) Joint Copies No access
    3. c) Replicas of the Fragrance No access
  5. 2. Fragrances with a Completely New Identity No access
7. § 8 Conclusion of Part 1 No access Pages 67 - 68
1. 1. I. Definitions and Legal Bases No access
  2. 1. 1. Patent Application No access
    2. 2. Rights under Patents No access
  3. 1. 1. Three of Four Conditions? No access
    2. 2. The Concept of Invention in European Law No access
2. 1. 1. 1. Exclusion of Aesthetic Creations No access
    2. 2. Fragrances as Inventions No access
  2. 1. 1. Fragrance Formula No access
    2. 2. Chemical Formula No access
  3. 1. 1. a) As Such No access
      2. b) As Intermediary Chemical Products No access
    2. 1. a) Classification No access
      2. b) A Lucrative Business No access
3. 1. I. Novelty No access
  2. 1. 1. a) The Person “Skilled in the Art” No access
      2. b) Obvious and Non-Obvious Scents No access
    2. 2. Perfume and Technical Aspect No access
  3. III. Industrial Applicability No access
4. 1. 1. 1. a) Perfumes No access
      2. b) Synthetic Materials No access
    2. 2. Costs of Protection No access
  2. 1. 1. Necessary Technical Character No access
    2. 2. Disclosure of the Formula No access
5. § 13 Conclusion of Part 2 No access Pages 90 - 91
1. 1. 1. 1. Function of a Trademark No access
    2. 2. Evolution of Trademarks over the Years No access
  2. 1. 1. a) Harmonisation within the Member States No access
      2. (i) Graphical Representation No access
        (ii) Distinctiveness No access
    2. 1. a) Trademark Law Treaty No access
      2. b) WTO No access
  3. 1. 1. a) Community Application No access
      2. b) International Application No access
    2. 2. Advantages of Trademark Protection No access
2. 1. 1. 1. a) Naturally and Usually Scented Products No access
      2. (i) Fragrant Valorisation of Neutral Smelling Products No access
        (ii) Hiding a Natural Unpleasant Smell No access
    2. 1. a) Corporate Smells No access
      2. b) Atmosphere Smells No access
  2. 1. 1. Why an Olfactory Mark? No access
    2. 1. a) Access to the Smell No access
      2. b) Evolution and Recognition No access
3. 1. 1. 1. The First Historical Registration in the US No access
    2. 1. a) The Chanel Failure No access
      2. b) Perfumed Tyres and Darts Successes No access
    3. 3. Olfactory Trademark Practice in Australia and New Zealand No access
  2. 1. 1. (i) Acceptance of the First Olfactory Community Mark No access
        (ii) The Controversy No access
      2. (i) Confirmation of the Registrability No access
        (ii) Lack of Distinctive Character No access
    2. 1. a) The “Sieckmann” Case No access
      2. 1) “Coloured Matrix” (CTM-Application No. 521 914) No access
        2) “Virginia Tobacco” (CTM-Application No. 566 596) No access
        3) The “Smell of Ripe Strawberries” (CTM-Application No. 1 122 118) No access
        4) “The Smell of Vanilla” (CTM-Application No. 1 807 353) No access
        5) The Smell of Lemon (CTM-Application No. 1 254 861) No access
        6) The Taste of Oranges (CTM-Application No. 3 132 404) No access
        (ii) A Negative Impact on National Jurisprudence No access
4. 1. 1. 1. a) Direct Representation v. Indirect Representation No access
      2. b) Criticism as to Potential Constitutional Conflicts No access
      3. c) Graphical Representation Conditioned by Flexible Interpretation of Legal Texts No access
    2. 1. 1) Colour and Music Analogy No access
        2) Scope of Protection and Common-Sense No access
        1) Limits of Verbal Description. No access
        2) Accurate Description of a Fragrance by its Name No access
      2. b) Picture of the Fragrant Product No access
      3. c) The Chemical Formula No access
      4. (i) Invalid Means of Graphic Representation No access
        (ii) Practical Issues No access
      5. e) Modern Smell Recording Methods No access
  2. 1. 1. The Smell, Substance or Signature? No access
    2. 2. Generic Fragrances No access
5. § 18 Conclusion of Part 3 No access Pages 149 - 149
1. 1. 1. 1. Origin and Purpose No access
    2. 2. Copyright /Authors’ Rights No access
  2. 1. 1. Legal Basis No access
    2. 1. a) Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing No access
      2. b) Existence of a Perceptible Form No access
      3. c) Originality No access
    3. 3. A Generous Protection No access
2. 1. I. Short Overview No access
  2. 1. 1. 3 July 1975: Rochas v. de Laire No access
    2. 2. 6 June 1997: Kenzo and Tamaris v. Parfums Via Paris No access
    3. 3. 28 June 2000: Clarins v. Batignolles and Pierre Cattier No access
    4. 4. 24 Sept. 1999: Mugler v. Molinard No access
  3. 1. 1. 26 May 2004: L’Oréal v. Bellure No access
    2. 2. 4 June 2004: BPI v. Bellure et Eva France No access
    3. 3. 17 Sept. 2004: BPI v. Bellure and Euro Media No access
    4. 4. 23 May 2006: BPI v. Senteur Mazal No access
  4. 1. 1. 13 June 2006: Nejla Bsiri-Barbir v. Haarmann-Reimer No access
    2. 2. 16 June 2006: Lancôme v. Kecofa No access
  5. 1. 1. 28 Nov. 2006: L’Oréal v. Bellure No access
    2. 2. 14 Feb. 2007: BPI v. Senteur Mazal No access
    3. 3. 13 Sept. 2007: Lancôme v. Argeville No access
    4. VI. 2008-2009: Double Confirmation of Cassation’s Position No access
    5. 1. 1 July 2008: BPI v. Senteur Mazal No access
    6. 2. 22 Jan. 2009: Lancôme v. Argeville No access
  6. 1. 1. 6 April 2009: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque No access
    2. 2. 30 April 2009: BPI v. Coscentra Sales et Autres No access
    3. 3. 22 Oct. 2009: L’Oréal v. Bellure No access
    4. 4. 20 May 2010: BPI v. Millenium Diffusion No access
    5. 5. 10 December 2010: Lancôme v. Argeville No access
  7. 1. 1. 11 April 2001 and 10 December 2013: Lancôme v. Patrice Farque No access
    2. 2. 11 April 2014: Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie et a.c./Pin (Pirate-Parfum) No access
3. 1. I. Non-Exhaustive Legal Framing and Intention of Legislation No access
  2. 1. 1. Stability of the Olfactory Form No access
    2. 2. Objective Description of the Olfactory Form No access
  3. 1. 1. Personal Imprint No access
    2. 2. Novelty No access
    3. 3. Success No access
    4. 4. Creative Process No access
4. 1. 1. 1. Perfume and Music No access
    2. 2. Perfume and Culinary Recipes No access
    3. 3. Perfume and Industrial Environment No access
    4. 4. Chemists or Artists? No access
  2. 1. 1. a) Introduction of a Preliminary Obstacle No access
      2. b) Arbitrary Exclusion of a Style No access
      3. c) Incontestable Interaction of Art and Know-How No access
    2. 1. a) Fear of Consequences No access
      2. b) Limits of Chemical Senses No access
      3. (i) Dangers of a Too Welcoming Right No access
        (ii) Unpleasant Smells No access
        (iii) Other Sensorial Creations No access
      4. d) Legal Consequences for the Fragrance Industry No access
      5. e) Economic Repercussions No access
5. § 23 Conclusion of Part 4 No access Pages 211 - 211
6. 1. 1. 1. Mitigated Relevance of Patent Protection for Olfactory Inventions No access
    2. 2. The Unlucky Fate of Olfactory Marks No access
    3. 3. The Ambivalent Negation of Olfactory Works No access
  2. II. Final Summary No access
Bibliography No access Pages 221 - 228

Bibliography (116 entries)

ACKERMANN, BRUNHILDE: Das Sprachenproblem im europäischen Primär- und Sekundärrecht und der Turmbau zu Babel, WRP 2000, 807-812. Open Google Scholar
ACKERMANN, DIANE: A Natural History of the Senses, New York City (1995). Open Google Scholar
ARAGON, LOUIS: Aurélien, Paris (1944). Open Google Scholar
ASTIC, VALÉRIE / LARRIEU, JACQUES: Des rugissements aux odeurs: l’évolution des marques commerciales, D. 389-394. Open Google Scholar
BALAÑA, SERGIO: Urheberrechtsschutz für Parfüms, GRUR Int. 2005, 979-991. Open Google Scholar
BARBET, VIRGINIE / BREESÉ, PIERRE / GUICHARD, NATHALIE / LECOQUIERRE, CAROLINE / LEHU, JEAN-MARC / VAN HEEMS, RÉGINE: Le Marketing Olfactif, Paris (1999). Open Google Scholar
BASSARD, ANDRÉ: La composition d’une formule de parfum est-elle une “oeuvre de l’esprit” au sens de la loi du 11 mars 1957?, RIPIA 1979, no. 118, 461-463. Open Google Scholar
BAUDELAIRE, CHARLES: Flowers of Evil (Translated by James McGowan), New York (1993). Open Google Scholar
BAUMANN, MAX: Die Nase der Justitia, RSJ 1993, 409-416. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77908-4_22
BEDOUKIAN, PAUL Z.: Perfumery Synthetics and Isolates, New York (1951). Open Google Scholar
BENDER, ACHIM: Die absoluten Schutzversagungsgründe für die Gemeinschaftsmarke - Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des Harmonisierungsamtes, MarkenR 4/2000, 118-123. Open Google Scholar
BENDER, ACHIM: Neue Markenformen in Alicante - Erste Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des Harmonisierungsamts zu Farben, dreidimensionalen Zeichen, Hör-, Geruchs-, Buchstabenmarken und Slogans, MarkenR 4/1999, 117-123. Open Google Scholar
BLUMER, FRITZ: Formulierung und Änderung der Patentansprüche im europäischen Patentrecht, Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München (1998). Open Google Scholar
BRUGUIÈRE, JEAN-MICHEL: Note under TGI Paris, 26 May 2004, Les fragrances “au pays des merveilles” et toujours les difficultés d’appréhension de l’odeur par la propriété intellectuelle, JCP 29 September 2004, no. 40, pp. 1697-1700. Open Google Scholar
BRUGUIÈRE, JEAN-MICHEL: Protection des fragrances - Cap sur l’Assemblée plénière!, Propr. Intell. January 2011, no. 23, 81-112. Open Google Scholar
BRUGUIÈRE, JEAN-MICHEL: Chroniques Droit d’auteur et droits voisins - Propr. Intell. January 2014, no. 50, 51-53. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.3917/legi.051.0005
Pirate-parfum », le « libérateur » des fragrances, est lourdement condamné - La Semaine Juridique Entreprise et Affaires, 3 July 2014 - no 27. Open Google Scholar
BRUGUIÈRE, JEAN-MICHEL / VIVANT, MICHEL: Protéger les inventions de demain, Paris (2003). Open Google Scholar
BRUGUIÈRE, JEAN-MICHEL / VIVANT, MICHEL: Droit d’auteur, Paris (2009). Open Google Scholar
BURNIER, DOMINIQUE: La notion de l’invention en droit européen des brevets, Nyon (1981). Open Google Scholar
BURR, CHANDLER: The Emperor of Scent, New York City (2004). Open Google Scholar
BURTON, HELEN: The UK Trade Marks Act 1994: An Invitation to an Olfactory Occasion?, EIPR 1995/8, 378-384. Open Google Scholar
CALVO, JEAN: Note under T. Com. Paris, 15th ch., 24 September 1999, LPA June 2007, no. 43, pp. 13-16. Open Google Scholar
CALVO, JEAN / MORELLE, GUY: Note under CA Paris, 3 July 1975, Gaz. Pal. 21-22 January 1976, pp. 43-48. Open Google Scholar
CANTWELL, JOHN: The Patent System and the Measurement of Invention, London (2006). Open Google Scholar
CARON, JEAN-CHRISTOPHE: Note under CA Paris, 25 January 2006, Le droit d’auteur au parfum, JCP Mars 2006, pp. 26-27. Open Google Scholar
CHAI, MOON-KI: Protection of Fragrances under the Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine, TMR 1990/4, 368-381. Open Google Scholar
COLOMER, RUIZ-JARABO: Europäische Union - Generalanwalt zum Schutz von Geruchsmarken, GRUR Int. 2001, 1071-1072. Open Google Scholar
CRONIN, CHARLES: A Fracas about Fragrance, P&F July 2010, 44-48. Open Google Scholar
CRONIN, CHARLES: Genius in a Bottle: Perfume, Copyright, and Human Perception, CSUSA Journal Winter-Spring 2009, no. 56, 427-483. Open Google Scholar
CRONIN, CHARLES / GUILLEMIN CLAIRE: Stop Making Scents? P&F May 2014, 20-21. Open Google Scholar
COHEN JEHORAM, HERMAN: Der niederländische Hoge Raad gewährt einem Parfumduft Urheberrechtsschutz, GRUR Int. 2006, 920-922. Open Google Scholar
COLTON, CHARLES CALEB: Lacon, Vol. 1, London (1821). Open Google Scholar
COLTON, CHARLES CALEB: Compact Oxford English Dictionary, (2008). Open Google Scholar
CORBIN, ALAIN: The Foul and the Fragrant, New York (1986). Open Google Scholar
CROCHET, JEAN-LOUIS: Parfumerie et droits d’auteurs, RIPIA December 1979, 458-460. Open Google Scholar
DALEAU, JEANNE: Note under CA Paris, 25 January 2006, D. 2006, pp. 580-581. Open Google Scholar
DALEAU, JEANNE: Note under Cass. Civ. 1st ch. 13 june 2006, D. 2006, no. 25, pp. 1741-1742. Open Google Scholar
DUBARRY, MARIE: La Protection Juridique d’une Fragrance, Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse (2000). Open Google Scholar
EDELMAN, BERNARD: Note under Cass. Civ. 1st ch., 13 June 2006, D. 2006, pp. 2470-2472. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/notesj/gjj134
ELIAS, BETTINA: Do Scents signify Source? - An Argument against Trademark Protection for Fragrances, TMR 1992, Vol. 82, 475-530. Open Google Scholar
ELLENA, JEAN-CLAUDE: Le Parfum, Paris (2007). Open Google Scholar
EPO (European Patent Office) Publications: Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (April 2010). Open Google Scholar
EPO (European Patent Office) Publications: How to get a European patent - Guide for applicants (December 2007). Open Google Scholar
FEHLBAUM, PASCAL: Les créations du domaine de la parfumerie: quelle protection?, Geneva (2007). Open Google Scholar
FEZER, KARL-HEINZ: Olfaktorische, gustatorische und haptische Marken - Marken-Orchideen als innovative Wirtschaftsgüter, GRUR 1999, 575-579. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1998.0260
FEZER, KARL-HEINZ: Was macht ein Zeichnen zur Marke? Die latente Herkunftsfunktion als rechtliche Voraussetzung der Eintragungsfähigkeit einer Marke , GRUR 2000, 1-8. Open Google Scholar
FEZER, KARL-HEINZ: Entwicklungslinien und Prinzipien des Markenrechts in Europa, Auf dem Weg zur Marke als einem immaterialgüterrechtlichen Kommunikationszeichen, GRUR 2003, 457-468. Open Google Scholar
FIELD, THOMAS G., JR.: Copyright Protection for Perfumes, IDEA 2004, Vol. 45, 19. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.573881
GALAN, DELPHINE: L’oeuvre olfactive à l’épreuve du droit d’auteur, Propr. Intell. January 2010, no. 34, 568-579. Open Google Scholar
GALAN, DELPHINE: Résistance au royaume des fragrances, RLDI June 2007, no. 28, 14-18. Open Google Scholar
GALAN, DELPHINE: Fragrances: la passation du flambeau de la résistance, RLDI November 2009, no. 54, 11-13. Open Google Scholar
GALLOUX, JEAN-CHRISTOPHE: Note under TGI Paris, 26 May 2004, Profumo di diritto - Le principe de la protection des fragrances par le droit d’auteur, D. 2004, no. 36, pp. 2641-2645. Open Google Scholar
GLÉMAS, EMMANUELLE: La protection du parfum par le droit d’auteur, RDPI December 1997, 35-43. Open Google Scholar
GRABRUCKER, MARIANNE: Neu Markenformen, MarkenR 3/2001, 95-105. Open Google Scholar
GRUNEBAUM, KARINE: La petite musique du parfum, Le Progrès - version femina, 25-31 May 2009, 22. Open Google Scholar
GUTH, WALTER: Das Urteil des EuGH zur Riechmarke - Anmerkungen und Folgerungen, MittdtPatA. March 2003, 97-100. Open Google Scholar
HAMMERSLEY, FAYE: The Smell of Success: Trade Dress Protection For Scent Marks, MarqIntellPropLRev. 1998, Vol. 2, 105-156. Open Google Scholar
HAWES, JAMES E.: Fragrances as Trademarks, TMR 1989, Vol. 79, 134-157. Open Google Scholar
HERZ, RACHEL: The Scent of Desire - Discovering Our Enigmatic Sense of Smell, New York (2008). Open Google Scholar
HUMBLOT, BENOÎT: Droit d’auteur: les créateurs de parfums rassérénés par les juges du fond, RLDI April 2007, no. 26, 55-58. Open Google Scholar
HUMBLOT, BENOÎT: Arrêt “Dune”: la Cour de cassation dans les sables mouvants du droit d’auteur, RLDI July/August 2006, no. 18, 10-13. Open Google Scholar
HUMBLOT, BENOÎT: Saisir l’insaisissable: fragrances et concrétisation de l’oeuvre en droit d’auteur, RLDI May 2006, no. 16, 19-21. Open Google Scholar
JELLINEK, STEPHAN J.: Parfümieren von Produkten, Heidelberg (1976). Open Google Scholar
JOHANNES, HARTMUT: Welche Zeichen können Marken nach der Richtlinie 89/104 in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten der EU sein?, MarkenR 2/2001, 46-48. Open Google Scholar
KANT, IMMANUEL: Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view, Carbondale and Edwardsville (1978 (1789)). Open Google Scholar
KARLEN, PETER H.: Fragrance Registration in the US, Trademark World February 1991, no. 34, 18-21. Open Google Scholar
KELLER, HELEN: The World I live In, New York (1903). Open Google Scholar
KOELMAN, KAMIEL: Le droit d’auteur au tribunal - Parfum ou forme d’expression artistique?, WIPO Mag. September 2006, 2-3. Open Google Scholar
KUR, ANNETTE: Was macht ein Zeichen zur Marke?, MarkenR 1/2000, 1-6. Open Google Scholar
KUTSCHA, CHRISTIANE: Die Geruchsmarke : Registrierfähigkeit eines Geruchs als europäische Gemeinschaftsmarke und als nationale deutsche Handelsmarke, Hamburg (2005). Open Google Scholar
LABORDE, ANNE SOPHIE: Droit d’auteur: la fragrance revient en odeur de sainteté, RLDI March 2007, no. 25, 59-62. Open Google Scholar
LALLIGANT, OLIVIER: Des oeuvres aux marches du droit d’auteur: les oeuvres de l’esprit perceptibles par l’odorat, le goût et le toucher, RJJ 1992, no. 1, 99-128. Open Google Scholar
LAMPARSKY, DIETMAR: Analytik von Riechstoffen und Parfümölen, Parfümerie und Kosmetik 3/90, 152-163. Open Google Scholar
LANDFERMANN, HANS-GEORG: Die aktuelle Entscheidungspraxis des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamtes, MarkenR 2000, 385-388. Open Google Scholar
LE GUÉRER, ANNICK: Die Macht der Gerüche, Stuttgart (1992). Open Google Scholar
LE MAQUET, JOCELYNE AND JEAN-PAUL / GRASSE, MARIE CHRISTINE / ELLENA, JEAN-CLAUDE: Sous le Signe du Parfum - Edmond ROUDNITSKA Compositeur-Parfumeur, Thonon-les-Bains (1991). Open Google Scholar
LUCAS, ANDRÉ / SIRINELLI, PIERRE: Note under TGI Paris, 26 May 2004 and TGI PAris 4 June 2004, (Non) protection d’un parfum - le juge est au parfum. mais toute fragrance ne mérite pas protection, Propr. Intell. October 2004, no. 13, pp. 907-909. Open Google Scholar
LYONS, DEBRETT: Sounds, Smells and Sign, EIPR 1994/12, 540-543. Open Google Scholar
MAURIN, MAURICE: La Sagesse du Créateur de Parfum, Paris (2006). Open Google Scholar
MEISTER, HERBERT E.: Markenfähigkeit und per se-Ausnahmen im Gemeinschaftsmarkenrecht, WRP September 2000, 967-976. Open Google Scholar
MONNERAIS, ISABELLE: The science of a good nose! - An interview with Pierre Breesé, Découverte, April 2006, 38. Open Google Scholar
GRANSTRAND, OVE: Patent and Intellectual Property: A General Framework, Patent and Intellectual Property: A General Framework 2006, The Patent System and the Measurement of Invention, 3-100. Open Google Scholar
PAMOUKDJIAN, JEAN-PIERRE: Le Droit du Parfum, Paris (1982). Open Google Scholar
PASSA, JÉRÔME: Fragrances: état des Lieux, presentation within a meeting of the study group “Le parfum dans tous ses états” on 12 January 2010. Open Google Scholar
POLLAUD-DULIAN, FRÉDÉRIC: Note under Cass. civ. 1st ch., 13 June 2006, JCP 2006, pp. 1597-1600. Open Google Scholar
PROUST, MARCEL: Swann’s Way, New York (1928). Open Google Scholar
QUELEN DE, HERN: La fragrance d'un parfum est-elle insusceptible d'être protégée au titre des oeuvres de l'esprit? Report of conference at the Conseil de cassation on 25 November 2009. Open Google Scholar
ROUDNITSKA, EDMOND: Le Parfum, Paris (1987). Open Google Scholar
SAINTEROSE, JERRY: Pour la protection des fragrances par le droit d’auteur, LPA 10 January 2007, 4-8. Open Google Scholar
SANCHEZ, TANIA / TURIN, LUCA: Perfumes - The Guide, New York (2008). Open Google Scholar
SCHNITZLER, LOTHAR / KATZENSTEINER, THOMAS: Hören und Fühlen, Wirtschaftswoche, 23 June 2008, 73. Open Google Scholar
SCHULZE, CHARLOTTE: Registering Colour Trade Marks in the European Union, EIPR 2003, 55-67. Open Google Scholar
SESSINGHAUS, KAREL: Die graphische Darstellbarkeit von Geruchsmarken vor dem Hintergrund des deutschen Markenrechts, WRP June 2002, 650-664. Open Google Scholar
SIECKMANN, RALF: Erste Entscheidung zur Eintragung einer Geruchsmarke nach der Gemeinschaftsmarkenverordnung - Anmerkung zur Entscheidung der 2. Beschwerdekammer des HABM vom 11.2.1999 - R 156/1998-2 - The smell of fresh cut grass, WRP 6/1999, 618-620. Open Google Scholar
SIECKMANN, RALF: Die Eintragungspraxis und -möglichkeiten von nicht-traditionellen Marken innerhalb und außerhalb der EU, MarkenR 6/2001, 236-248. Open Google Scholar
SIECKMANN, RALF: Zum Begriff der graphischen Darstellbarkeit von Marken, WRP May 2002, 491-496. Open Google Scholar
SIRINELLI, PIERRE: Note under CA Paris, 17 September 2004, Un parfum enfin en odeur de sainteté, Propr. Intell. January 2005, no. 14, pp. 47-49. Open Google Scholar
SPUHLER, OLIVER: Zweimal blaues Auge für Nivea, Lebensmittel Zeitung, 7 August 2009, 24. Open Google Scholar
STAMELMAN, RICHARD: Perfume - Joy, Obsession, Scandal, Sin - A Cultural History of Fragrance from 1750 to the Present, New York (2006). Open Google Scholar
STRAUSS, CHARLES-HENRY: Le doux parfum de la résistance, RLDI March 2007, no. 25, 63-65. Open Google Scholar
STRÖBELE, PAUL: The Registration of New Trademark Forms, IIC 2001/2, 161-182. Open Google Scholar
SÜSKIND, PATRICK: Perfume - The Story of a Murderer, London (2006). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-9667-7_13
THOMAS, DANA: Deluxe - How Luxury Lost its Luster, New York (2007). Open Google Scholar
TURIN, LUCA: The Secret of Scent, London (2007). Open Google Scholar
TURNER-KERR, PETER M.: TRADE MARKS - Application to the European Trade Marks Office (”OHIM”) for registration of an olfactory mark - “the smell of fresh cut grass”, EIPR 2001, 19-20. Open Google Scholar
VIEFHUES, MARTIN: Geruchsmarken als neue Markenform, MarkenR 8-9/1999, 249-254. Open Google Scholar
VIVANT, MICHEL: Parfum: l’heureuse résistance des juges du fond, D. 2004, no. 14, 954-955. Open Google Scholar
VÖLKER, STEFAN / SCHUSTER, SILKE: Community Trade Marks and Absolute Grounds for Refusal Part 2, Trademark World March 2000, 22-25. Open Google Scholar
VÖLKER, STEFAN: Registering new forms under the Community Trademark, Trademark World November 2002, 24-33. Open Google Scholar
WELL-SZÖNYI, CATHERINE: Note under Cass. civ, 1st ch., 13 June 2006, GRUR Int. 2006, pp. 1039-1041. Open Google Scholar
WELL-SZÖNYI, CATHERINE: Note under Cass. com., 1 July 2008, GRUR Int. 2009, pp. 622-623. Open Google Scholar
WHEELER, KAREN: PERFECT WEEKEND - Francis Kurkdjian, Financial Times, May 2006, 30. Open Google Scholar
WILDE, OSCAR: The Picture of Dorian Gray, London (1992). Open Google Scholar
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Publications: Understanding Industrial Property, Geneva (2004). Open Google Scholar
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use, Geneva (2004). Open Google Scholar