Germany: The Liberalization of the Court of First Instance of the EC - Recent Decisions Show a Possibly More Lenient Approach to Trade Mark Registrability

Last Updated: 13 February 2002
Article by Claus Eckhartt

In February of this year, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities („CFI") implemented various amendments to its rules of procedure with a view to expedite the proceedings. One of the main reasons for introducing this "fast track" procedure are the substantial amount of proceedings currently pending before the CFI and the European Court of Justice („ECJ") whose subject matters are decisions from the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trademarks and designs) („OHIM") in Alicante to which an appeal has been filed. In total, 30 decisions have been issued by the CFI to date relating to trademark matters; more than 50 trademark cases are still pending. Most of the cases deal with refusals of trademark applications on absolute grounds. However, there are some cases concerned with procedural aspects. Clearly, the decisions of the CFI have a decisive impact on the way the Examiners of OHIM and the members of the Boards of Appeal view the issues involved when refusing Community trademark applications on absolute grounds. Practitioners are therefore well advised to closely monitor the case-law of the CFI, albeit the final decision is with the ECJ. While the decisions handed down so far may not give the complete picture of the approach of the CFI regarding the various questions involved. as yet, it is certainly a worthwhile exercise to briefly review what is available.

Competence of the CFI and Basic Principles

According to Art. 63 of the Community Trademark Regulations, actions may be brought before the European Court of Justice against decisions of the Boards of Appeal. The recitals 12 and 13 in the CTMR make it clear that it is the CFI which is to have jurisdiction over appeals from the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The jurisdicion of the CFI was initially confined to staff cases and the review of the competition decision decisions of the EC Commission. Now the CFI has jurisdiction to hear all cases brought under Articles 173 and 175 of the Treaty of Rome by non-privileged applicants. As a consequence, the judicial control was added in relation to CTMs.

The majority of decisions handed down so far deal with cases where the Boards of Appeal have confirmed a decision of OHIM in respect of a lack of distinctiveness, a presumed descriptiveness and/or customary usage of a Community Trademark Application as set forth in Articles 7 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the CTMR. Recurring basic principles stated by the CFI in its decisions are:

  • The decisive factor of a sign capable of being represented graphically is to be eligible for registration as a Community trademark if its capacity to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of another (Case T-163/98 Procter & Gamble vs. OHIM - Baby-dry");
  • the assessment of the absolute grounds for refusals involves taking account of a range of elements, in particular the general impression made by the mark examined as a whole and the peception which the average consumer is likely to have of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, in each of the languages of the European Union and for each of the goods or services in question (Case T-24/00, The Sunrider Corporation vs. OHIM – „Vitalite");
  • as to the question whether a sign is descriptive, it must be determined whether it is currently associated in the mind of the relevant class of persons with the category of goodsor services concerned, or whether it is reasonable to assume that such an association may be established in the near future (Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99, Telefon & Buch Verlagsges. mbH vs. OHIM, „Universaltelefonbuch" and „Universalkommunikationsverzeichnis").
  • The absolute gound of refusal laid down in Art. 7 (1) (c) of the CTMR must be assessed in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration of the sign is applied (Case T-63/98 Procter & Gamble vs. OHIM, - „Baby-dry").
  • In relation to the question whether a term has an exclusively descriptive character, the test is whether it is too vague and indeterminate to confirm a descriptive character on the particular term in relation to particuklar goods and services or whether the relevant section of the public establishes immediately and without further reflection a definite and direct association with the goods and services in question. The relevant section of the public is deemed to be the average, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect English-speaking consumer (Case T-359/99, Deutsche Krankenversicherung vs. OHIM –„Eurohealth"?; ECJ case C-342/97 Lloyd vs. Schuhfabrik Meier);

  • Previous regisrtations as trademarks in certain Member States may only be taken into consideration, without being given decisive weight, for the purposes of registering the Community trademark in view of the fact that the purpose of the Community trademark is to enable the products and services of undertakings to be distinguished by identical means throughout the entire Community, regardless of frontiers (Case T-122/99- Procter & Gamble vs. OHIM – „Soap bar shape");

  • Each of the absolute grounds for refusal connected with lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness and customary usage has its own sphere of application, and they are neither independent nor mutually esclusive; it is sufficient that one of the absolute grounds for refusal applies; even if those grounds are applicable separately, they may also be applied cumulatively (Case T-345/99 – Harbinger Corporation vs. OHIM „Trustedlink")

In the first decisions, the CFI applied stringent standards relating to the inherent distinctiveness of Community trademark applications. In general, the decisions of the Boards of Appeal were confirmed. Decisions of refusal of registrations were issued either according to Art. 7 (1) (b) or Art. 7 (1) (c) of the CTMR.

In the decision „Baby-dry" (T-163/98), trademark protection was denied for the goods „diapers" on the grounds that this term did not have capacity of distinguishing the goods of one untertaking from those of another one. The CFI confirmed the Board Of Appeal’s opinion that "Baby-dry", read as a whole, immediately informs consumers of the intended purpose of the goods. Furthermore, it did not exhibit additional features which might render a sign as a whole distinctive. However, the CFI accepted the applicant’s arguments that the Board of Appeal was wrong when refusing to examine the applicant’s evidence that the term in question had become distinctive in consequence of the use made of it.

Subsequently, „Companyline" was rejected by the CFI for the services „insurance" (T-19/99) with the reasoning, that the words „company" and „line" are generic words simply denoting a line of goods or services for undertakings. Coupling them together without any graphic or semantic modification did not imbue them with any additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable of distinguishing the applicant’s services from those of other undertakings.

The trademark application for „OPTIONS" in conjunction with the services „insurance, warranty, financing, hire-purchase and lease-purchase" was also considered by the CFI as being devoid of any distinctive character in the English and French languages, thus confirming the Board of Appeal’s opinion in its decision (T-91/99). In those proceedings, the applicant had not disputed the lack of distinctiveness of the word „OPTIONS" in the French language. Furthermore, no submissions were made to the end that it had acquired a distinctive character in a substantial part of the Community. In the decision „TrustedLink" (T-345/99) the CFI held that this term is customary in English-speaking countries within and outside the Community having the meaning of a reliable link or a link which can be relied on also in relation to goods and services in the field of electronic commerce. The joining of „trusted" and „link", whether written separately or as one word merely describes the desired quality of a link, in this case reliability. In this decision, the CFI furthermore confirmed the opinion of the Board of Appeal that each of the absolute grounds for refusal connected with a lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness and customary usage (Art. 7 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the CTMR) has its own sphere of application, and they are neither independent nor mutually exclusive. It is sufficient that one of the absolute grounds for refusal applies. Even if such grounds apply separately, they must also apply cumulatively.

Similar considerations were adhered to in a subsequent decision of the CFI relating to the application for registration of the term „Investorworld" in relation to „financial sevices" (T-360/99). In the case „electronica" (T-32/00), the CFI then again confirmed the decision of the 2nd Board of Appeal to reject the trademark „electronica" for organizing trade fairs and conferences regarding electronic components assembly, although the applicant restricted them to those to be held in Munich exclusively.

More Lenient Approach in Recent Rulings?

In recent decisions of the CFI, a more lenient approach as to the question of inherent registrability of Community trademarks is becoming increasingly apparent. In the case concerning the trademark „VITALITE" (T-24/00), the CFI was of the opinion that the trademark was susceptible to trademark protection in relation to the goods „mineral water and baby food" on the grounds that the term „VITALITE" does not go beyond the acceptable limits of suggestion, even if it promotes the growth of babies and even if an image of vitality has been given to mineral waters for promotional purposes. In that decision, the CFI again stressed the rule that it is for OHIM to establish, in each case, the existence of an actual, ascertainable use of the word in question by competitors to describe the goods in respect of which registration is sought or of the existence of a need to use that term if an application was rejected on the ground that it is exclusively descriptive and as such had to remain freely available to all competitors. The link between the meaning of the word „VITALITE" on the one hand and the word in question on the other hand does not seem to be sufficiently close to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Art. 7 (1) c) of the CTMR. The CFI noted that the term is a case of evocation and not designation for the purposes of the aforementioned provision. In any event, the lack of distinctiveness could not result from the mere findings, in the contested decision, of the absence of a „minimum amount of imagination".

Relating to the „Double Mint"-case (T-193/99), the Examiner and the Board of Appeal ruled that the wordmark „Double Mint„ could mean either that the goods in question („chewing gum") contain twice the usual amount of mint or that they are flavoured with two varieties of mint. The CFI subsequently overturned this decision by arguing that the consequences of such a double meaning would be that the term is ambiguous and vague and therefore to be accepted for trademark protection. To this, OHIM filed an appeal currently pending before the ECJ.

In the application for registration of the term „Easybank" for „internet banking" services, the Board of Appeal was of the opinion that this trademark was immediately descriptive of the fact that all the services offered by an online bank have the common characteristic of being more easily accessible by virtue of the use of electronic tools as compared to normal banks. The CFI, however, held (T-87/00) that the meaning of the term „Easybank" was too vague to be of a descriptive character in relation to services capable of being provided by an online bank. The CFI emphasized that the term „Easybank" did not give information as to particular services as transactions, such as e.g. cashing of a cheque or an order to invest at the stock exchange. The court outlined in detail that the term „Easybank" was neither to be kept freely available for competitors nor did it lack sufficient distinctiveness to serve for identifying the commercial origin of the services in respect of which its registration is applied for.

The most recent cases decided on by the CFI were those concerned with three-dimensional representations of two-layer dish-washing tabs in various colours. In total, 11 judgements were handed down with more or less the same content. The CFI held that the tablets in question which are of either round or rectangular shape consist of the basic geometric shapes and have an obvious shape for a product intended for use in washing machines or dish-washers. The use of basic colours such as blue or green was common-place and typical for detergents. When evaluating the registrability of the tabs as trademarks, the CFI analyzed the various tabs in relation to their respective elements: the shape of the tab, the colours and other prominent features. In doing so, the CFI referred to the „Puma/Sabèl" case of the ECJ which stated that for the assessment of the distinctiveness of trademarks consisting of various elements, the overall impression of the combinations of the various elements had to be analyzed as a whole. The CFI then entered into a detailed analysis of the separate features considering them to be individually insufficiently distinctive and concludes by remarking that the combination also lacks overall sufficient distinctiveness in its entirety. It will be interesting to see whether the parties involved, major players in the household cleaning product area, will try their luck with the ECJ as the final instance.

To the above decisions, the judgement of the CFI of October 3, 2001, in the case „Newborn baby" has to be added, where (T-150/00), the CFI continued its more lax approach to the registrability of trademarks. With respect to the goods „dolls to play with and accessories for such dolls in the form of playthings", the court argued, in contrast to the Board of Appeal, that even if the words „newborn baby" were descriptive in relation to dolls and the accessories mentioned, it does not follow that the public targeted perceives a direct and specific link between the sign in question and those accessories. It then reiterated its case-law relating to a presumed lack of distinctiveness by stating that such could not be found merely due to the fact that the sign is unimaginative or is not „fanciful".

ECJ Decision „Baby-dry"

Turning finally to a case which was mentioned at the beginning, the ECJ rendered its judgement on the „Baby-dry" case one day after the CFI’s tablet decisions. The ECJ followed the opinion of the Advocate General who had argued that the objective of Art. 7 (1) (c) CTMR was not to avoid monopolization of certain words necessary for trade, as this function was guaranteed by Art. 12 CTMR. The Advocate General stated that the trademark „Baby-dry" is of an „extremely elliptical nature" having an „unusual structure" and is „resistant to any intuitive grammatical analysis which would make the meaning immediately clear." Consequently, the ECJ ruled that combinations like „Baby-dry" cannot be regarded as exhibiting, as a whole, a descriptive character; they are lexical inventions bestowing distinctive power on the mark so formed and may thus not be refused. Their syntactically unusual juxtaposition is not a familiar expression in the English language, either for designating babies‘ nappies or for describing their essential characteristics. It is to be hoped that this decision will be read carefully by the Examiners of OHIM.

© Claus Eckhartt 2001. Claus Eckhartt is an attorney-at-law and partner with the Intellectual Property law firm Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler Isenbruck, Munich.

First published in MIP Trademark Yearbook 2002, EuromoneyPLC, London, 2001

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

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

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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