Canada: Court Of Justice Puts F1 Back On Track

In a case that has seen almost as much mileage as a Formula One car, the Court of Justice of the European Union ('CJEU') finally brought the chequered flag down on the race between Global Sports Media Limited ('GSM') and Formula One Licensing BV ('Formula One'). Towards the end, GSM were leading by some distance, if only because the General Court appeared to have poured 'generic' fuel into Formula One's tank. Fortunately, a pit stop in the CJEU has seen Formula One back in the race!

Background Facts

GSM's predecessor in title, Racing - Live SAS filed an application for a CTM on 13th April 2004 for the figurative sign shown below:

Registration was in Classes 16, 38, & 41 for such things as magazines, communication and dissemination of books & magazines via computer terminals; and electronic publications and periodicals etc., and all Classes had the words '....relating to the field of formula 1'.

In May 2005 Formula One opposed the application on the grounds of Article 8 (1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 40/94 (now 207/2009). Opposition was based on three registrations of the word sign F1 being an international registration in respect of the identical classes and covering the identical goods and services as the mark applied for: a German registration in Class 41 only; and a UK registration in Class 16 and Class 38. In addition, the opposition was based on Formula One's CTM, which was registered in Classes 16, 38 & 41 and covered the identical goods and services. The CTM was described as the 'F1 Formula 1 logo type' and is reproduced below:

In the Opposition Division, based only on the international registration, Formula One was successful in that it was found that the goods and services were similar or identical and that the signs were similar to a medium degree and as a result there would be likelihood of confusion between the marks. On appeal, however, the decision was reversed on the basis that even though the goods or services were identical or similar, there was no likelihood of confusion because the marks had obvious differences. More particularly, the Board of Appeal considered that the relevant public would perceive the combination of the letters 'F' and '1' as the generic designation of a category of racing car or races involving such cars. The Board of Appeal did consider Article 8 (5), but concluded that unless the mark was in the F1 Formula 1 logotype representation, few consumers would attribute any distinctive character, and certainly would not do so in relation to the simple abbreviation 'F1'. Unsurprisingly, Formula One appealed.

Sadly for Formula One, the General Court confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal.

Formula One argued that the Board of Appeal: (i) ignored their own findings that the goods and services were identical or otherwise extremely similar; (ii) erroneously regarded 'F1' as being generic and descriptive in character or otherwise lacked distinctiveness; (iii) as 'F1'was the dominant element, from a visual, phonetic and conceptual analysis there was similarity between the marks and therefore the Board should have found a likelihood of confusion, where the earlier mark had only a weak distinctive character; and (iv) the F1 Formula 1 logo type mark had a strongly distinctive character, which would inevitably lead to a likelihood of confusion.

It was not disputed that the average consumer was 'the relevant public', i.e. the general public at large within the EU, and the General Court also upheld the Board of Appeal's finding that the goods and services were identical or else very similar. It is, however, the area of comparison of the marks and their perception by the relevant public that came in for two and a half pages of legal analysis (long by EU judgement standards). The Court's conclusion that a distinction was to be made between 'F1' as an abbreviation of 'Formula One', thus designating the race car or races, and the 'F1' element of the F1 Formula 1 logotype mark, which the Court acknowledged the public would perceive as being the trade mark of Formula One. Supporting its conclusion was evidence by Formula One that they strictly enforced laws relating to the 'F1' element of the CTM, but there appeared to be no evidence in relation to 'F1' as a simple letter and numeral; the subject of the other registrations owned by Formula One. Also, GSM submitted a survey in Germany of the public, together with a witness statement, which appeared to persuade the Court that 'F1' as an abbreviation was generic, and the public do not specifically associate it with the races organised by Formula One. There appeared also to be evidence that 'F1' was used in a descriptive sense, thus making 'F1' generic as a term for 'Formula 1'. Accordingly, the public would not perceive a descriptive element of a complex mark as being the distinctive and dominant element in the overall impression conveyed by that mark. However, the Court considered that simply because the mark had been registered (as 'F1' for the international registrations and also that of the UK) did not prevent it from being largely descriptive or from having only a weak intrinsic distinctive character in respect of the goods or services it covered. In doing so it cited the Case T-146/08 Deutsche Rockwool v. OHIM – Redrock Construction (REDROCK), in which the earlier mark 'ROCK' was being used to prevent REDROCK being registered. And while the Court considered that the validity of an international national trade mark in an opposition proceeding could not be put in question, they nevertheless concluded that the way the relevant public perceived the 'F1' element was acceptable. It thus concluded that the 'F1' element in ordinary type set had only a weak distinctive character and did not have a separate reputation in its own right.

In carrying out the comparison between the application and the F1 Formula 1 logotype mark, the Court concluded, while there was no visual similarity, there was some degree of phonetic and conceptual similarity. However, the Court felt that because of the particular lack of visual similarity the Board of Appeal was correct to find that there was no likelihood of confusion.

With regard to the argument under Article 8 (5) the Court concluded that because of the lack of visual similarity and only weak phonetic and conceptual similarity, that was insufficient for a 'link' to be caused in the mind of the average consumer. The Court did not go any further to consider damage as a result.


On the one hand, the General Court's application of the law and applying it to the facts has been shockingly woeful, and fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, one can perhaps perceive their tortured logic in that Formula One has become a victim of its own success and the lack of policing of the lesser marks 'F1' has led to the 'generic' conclusion. However, the Court does not appear to have considered the impact of that decision on the actual mark being sought to be registered itself. If the 'F1' element is generic then given the public's perception it seems unbelievable that simply adding the word 'LIVE', putting that in a rectangular box with a circle behind it, becomes something that is capable of functioning as an indicator of source or origin of the goods. While one might have a certain sympathy with the Court's approach in not allowing Formula One to enforce its trade marks where the use of 'F1' is used in either a generic or descriptive sense, it is a totally different matter where a third party is seeking to register as a trade mark that very element.

More worryingly, however, is the omission by the Court in considering all the relevant factors to decide whether the mark applied for could be registered. Having found, as a fact, that the goods and services were identical or very similar, and that there was some similarity (whether weak or otherwise) between the marks themselves on the basis of phonetics and conceptualism, the Court omitted to take into consideration that a lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods or services. Adding that factor into the 'global appreciation test' should have ensured that the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion (as found by the original Opposition Division) would have been upheld.

Decision of the CJEU

In setting aside the General Court's decision and referring it back, the CJEU has chastised the General Court in its finding that the earlier mark lacked distinctive character being an absolute ground for refusal, not something it was possible to find in opposition proceedings. While the CJEU accepted that the General Court had to verify the way in which the public perceived the sign identical to the earlier (in this case, national) mark, there were limits to that verification. That did not extend to find a lack of distinctive character since such a finding is not compatible with the coexistence arrangement between CTMs and national marks, or as read between Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation 40/94, and Article 8 (2)(a)(ii) which defines 'earlier trade marks'. To find otherwise would be detrimental to the national trade mark system.

The CJEU therefore found that it was necessary to acknowledge a certain degree of distinctiveness, which the General Court had not done. Instead, it had held that 'F1' was generic and not perceived as a distinctive element, rather, as an element with a descriptive function. Also, by considering that the public attributed a generic meaning to 'F1' the General Court was in fact questioning the validity of the earlier marks, which they were not entitled to do. The CJEU remitted the case back to the General Court to assess the facts.


In holding that the 'F1' element is descriptive and/or generic, the General Court had, undoubtedly overstepped the mark, and the CJEU has, fortunately, recognised this fact. Although they did not say so, a finding that has such a fundamental effect on the rights of a trade mark owner, should not be left to one piece of survey evidence, and in proceedings for which that finding was not designed. The approach in Case C-371/02 Bj?rnekulla Fruktindustrier (BOSTONGURKA) gives the more appropriate approach to be taken. Secondly, and once again, this case highlights how crucial the evidence is at the beginning of the procedure (Formula One attempted to put in additional evidence at a later stage but this was rejected). All too often trade mark owners cannot be bothered to put in the degree of effort required by their lawyers/trade mark agents to find the relevant evidence, or even sufficient of it.

The decision by the CJEU must come as considerable relief, not only to Formula One, but to brand owners generally who would otherwise have been blindsided in relation to the validity finding. Even so, it is something of a wake up call to brand owners to get the evidence right in the first place.

Next time, don't just kick the tyres, make sure there is air in them!

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions