• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Distinctive character of an EU trademark – to be demonstrated in every EU member state?

22. February 2018

Today, the European Court of Justice is dealing with an important issue for all trademark owners. Must the distinctive character of an EU trademark be demonstrated in each EU Member State? This is the decisive conclusion of a long-standing dispute between Nestlé and Mondelez.

Background of the disput

Nestlés 3-dimensional trademark

In July 2006, Nestlé SA was registered as an EU Community trade mark as a three-dimensional trade mark (four identical trapezoidal trapezoidal sheets arranged on a rectangular base) in Class 30 for the goods “confectionery, bakery, pastry, biscuits, cakes and waffles”. EUIPO objected to the registration as “Chocolate, chocolate products, confectionery, sweets”, but published Nestlé’s desired application in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin No. 3/2006.

In March 2007 Cadbury Schweppes plc (now Mondelez UK Holdings & Services) filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trademark granted. The Cancellation Division of EUIPO approved the application and declared the mark invalid in January 2011.

Nestlé appealed against the decision and was right to do so: in December 2012, the EUIPO Second Board of Appeal annulled the decision.

In turn, Mondelez did not agree with this and the case came before the European Court of Justice. In December 2016, a judgment was delivered before the ECJ in this case: The ECJ annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal and Nestlé was defeated in court.

Disputed issue is proof of distinctive character in the EU Member States

EuropeAt the centre of today’s hearing, as well as in the judgment of 2016, is the question as to whether the contested mark has acquired distinctive character through use in the European Union. It was found that the contested mark had acquired distinctive character through its use in Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. However, this is not enough to prove the point, the European Court of Justice argued as early as 2016, because although almost 90% of the European population lives in the above-mentioned EU countries, only 10 of the 28 countries are taken into account. Therefore, in 2016, the Board of Appeal had committed an error of law when it confirmed the distinctive character of the contested mark.

In today’s case, Nestlé appeals the judgment of December 2016 and refers to a violation of Art. 7 (3) and 52 (2) of the Union Trademark Regulation. Specifically,”Nestlé is opposed to the Court of First Instance’s decision that as regards the scope of the territory in which a distinctive character obtained through the use of a trade mark must be demonstrated, the distinctive character acquired through the use of the trade mark must be demonstrated throughout the territory of the European Union, i. e. in all the Member States concerned”, the Official Journal of the ECJ states  in this case (C-84/17 P).

Since this is a hearing before the court, it is not expected that a verdict will be delivered immediately. However, the verdict can be awaited with suspense. The question of whether or not the distinctive character of a trademark has to be proven in all EU member states is important for many trademark owners.

 

Are you interested in brand or trade mark protection?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

text:

Curia Europe: T-112/13 (2016)

Curia Europe: C-84/17 P

picture:

kirkandmimi /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  Trademark Law Tag iconEU,  Nestle,  Cadbury,  Mondelez

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021
  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

1. March 2021
Suspension of infringement proceedings

Suspension of infringement proceedings

25. February 2021
Design protection in China: Amendment 2021

Design protection in China: Amendment 2021

16. February 2021
BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

16. February 2021
UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

11. February 2021
EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

9. February 2021
BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form