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

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Figurative mark or colour mark – differences in distinctive character?

22. November 2018

In today’s preliminary ruling by the Advocate General of the ECJ, important questions relating to graphic marks will be clarified. A figurative mark cannot be applied for as a colour mark and there are clear differences in the distinctiveness of figurative and colour marks.

Today it is the next definitive judgment in the border area between the colour mark and the figurative mark after the sensational years of trademark dispute over the red sole of the famous Louboutin shoes ( Louboutin victorious in the battle over the famous red sole ).

Hartwell colour markBackground

The case began five years ago in Finland, when in September 2012 the beverage company Oy Hartwell wanted to register a colour combination as a colour mark (T201202718) for goods in class 32: mineral water. For the graphic representation, the company submitted a coloured image showing a blue band, the edges of which have a thin grey border. In the accompanying description, the color mark was provided with the detailed color values according to an internationally recognized color classification system (CYAN). The trade mark application was refused by the Finnish Trade Mark Office on 5 June 2013 on the ground that the trade mark applied for was devoid of any distinctive character. In the grounds for the decision it was stated, inter alia, that the registration would have required well-founded proof that the colours applied for had become distinctive through prolonged and extensive use in relation to the goods applied for.

Reference for a preliminary ruling about colour marks

Oy Hartwell brought an action against that decision. The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, Korkein hallinto-oikeus, therefore referred the case to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. In essence, the question is: must the trade mark be registered as a colour mark in accordance with the application, irrespective of its representation as an image, or can it only be registered as a figurative mark?
And if it were registrable as a colour mark, would there be differences in distinctiveness and would additional substantiated proof of use of the colour be necessary?

Advocate General Saugmandsgaard addressed these questions in detail in his Opinion today.

Definition of the colour mark

A colour mark is a sign consisting of a colour or combination of colours without shape or outline as such. Therefore, the registration of colour marks confers very broad protection (Libertel (C-104/01, EU:C:2003:244)).

While a coloured figurative mark actually shows exactly and only the element for which protection is sought, this is not the case with colour marks. A colour mark consisting of a single colour cannot therefore be represented by a mere colour sample, in particular because a colour sample may change over time. A colour description according to an internationally recognised colour classification system is mandatory.

In the case of colour marks consisting of combinations of colours, the Court also held in Heidelberger Bauchemie ((C-49/02, EU:C:2004) that the application for registration of a colour combination for correct accuracy must also contain a systematic arrangement in which the colours concerned are combined in a predetermined and consistent manner.

Advocate General sees clear differences in distinctiveness

If a trade mark is applied for as a colour mark, the specific characteristics of colour marks must be taken into account when assessing their distinctive character, according to its judgment. That is because a colour mark rarely has distinctive character from the outset and, second, because there is a public interest in ensuring that the availability of colours is not unduly restricted to all other economic operators. Therefore, there are clear differences in distinctiveness between the figurative mark and the colour mark, even though both are marks within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC.

A figurative mark as a colour mark is an opposition

A trademark application must in principle be free of opposition, since both the public and competitors orient themselves on the trademark classification and a determination of distinctiveness is only possible if the trademark application is unambiguous. In the present case, however, there is an opposition in the trademark application, since the contours used are not suitable to show how the color mark is to be applied to the indicated products. If the mark applied for were represented graphically in the same way as in the judgment in Louboutin shoes, the graphic representation would have to show how the colour mark applied to Oy Hartwall water bottles. However, the representation does not show a water bottle, but a blue band, the edges of which have a thin grey border.

The Advocate General therefore considers that Article 2 of Directive 2008/95 is to be interpreted as precluding registration of a trade mark where, as a result of oppositions in the application for registration, it is not possible to determine the precise subject-matter of the protection which the applicant seeks to obtain. That is the case in the present case where a trade mark is applied for as a colour mark but its graphic representation shows a figurative mark.

Comment

If the ECJ follows the Advocate General’s recommendations today, the judgment means a very careful selection in the trademark application for a figurative and color combination – it must be a decision “either-or”. Since the trademark law was revised in 2017 ( New EU Trade Mark regulations have begun ), it is no longer acceptable for an EU figurative trademark to contain descriptions of the color definition in the area of graphic trademarks. If the colour is the most important and identity-creating element in the company’s own presentation, a colour mark should be applied for – even if a colour mark is difficult to protect. At the same time, this innovation serves the general interest, as it ensures greater availability of colours for the general public. And the Advocate General stressed this as an important aspect in the distinctiveness of colour marks.

 

Would you also like to protect your brand or trademark?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

Sources:

text + picture: Opinion of Advocate General (Case EU:C:2018:946)

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  International Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconAdvocate General,  colour mark,  distinctiveness,  ECJ,  EuGH,  figurative mark,  Finnland,  graphical mark,  Hartwell,  Louboutin,  Opinion of Advocate General,  Trademark Application,  Unionmark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

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:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

17. February 2022
China joins the Hague Agreement

China joins the Hague Agreement

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

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
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

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

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

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.