• 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
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

ECJ: descriptive domain name cannot become a Union trademark

26. June 2018

The German SilverTours GmbH with its large online portal for rental cars cannot enforce that its Domain billiger-mietwagen.de is protected as a European word mark. The European Court of Justice confirmed the refusal to register the desired word mark.

mietwagenThe SilverTours GmbH case was heard against EUIPO (T-866/16). In the center of the argument is located the Domain www.billiger-mietwagen.de (German, i.e. “cheaper-rental car”), over which world-wide rented cars can be rented, very well-known in Germany. The domain holder wanted to protect this domain name as a European word mark. However, the European Patent Office (EUIPO) refused registration. In january 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed that billiger-mietwagen.de cannot be protected.

The complaint of SilverTours GmbH was based on three points:

  • The EUIPO had overlooked the fact that the mark applied for by billiger-mietwagen.de was not only unusual in terms of language, but grammatically incorrect. Accordingly, the relevant public would not take any meaningfulness from the mark applied for. The language-unusual word order also refers to the company origin of the services.
  • The EUIPO had not taken into account the direct and concrete link between the word mark in question and the services it covers.
  • The word mark applied for is not one of those categories of mark for which it is difficult to establish distinctiveness. Rather, the mark belongs to the “most typical” brand category, namely that in which the type of sign already indicates its suitability as proof of origin.

But the ECJ deinied the claims

In its response, the EUIPO had taken a detailed position on the rules of German grammar in connection with the word marks in question. The three word as “the cheap rental car”, “a cheap rental car” and “cheap rental car” were considered correct in linguistic and grammatical terms.
Signs or indications moreover which may serve to designate characteristics of the goods or services applied for should be freely available to all (Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009). That provision therefore precludes those signs or indications from being reserved to a single undertaking on the basis of their registration as trade marks.

The Board of Appeal was right to hold that the sign applied for,”billiger-mietwagen.de”, is descriptive of the services concerned and that therefore its registration as a Union trade mark constitutes an absolute ground for refusal of registration under Article 7(1)(c) and opposes Regulation 207/2009.
The ECJ rejected  rejected the appeal of SilverTours GmbH and upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. In addition, the plaintiff had to bear the costs.

This judgement is in line with similar judgements on trademark proceedings with domain names. German Federal Patent Court also recently ruled that the domain “Headline24” is descriptive for online services (read more: Domain “Headline24” for online services not distinctive).

ECJ Judgement of 26 June 2018: france.com cannot become a Union trademark

disputed sign france.com

Today, in another prominent case, the European Court of Justice ruled on a domain name that was to be protected as a trademark: france.com cannot become a Union trademark, the ECJ ruled today.

In particular, the Court took into account the EUIPO’s considerations on the likelihood of confusion. It concluded that there is little visual similarity between the disputed signs in their general visual design.

In terms of sound, however, the court confirmed the EUIPO’s assessment, that the opposing signs are almost identical. It can be assumed that many consumers would refer to the sign France.com solely with the word “France”, said the ECJ today.

france sign of the French Republic
france sign of the French Republic

In addition, the disputed signs are also conceptually very similar, since they convey the same concept: France, the Eiffel Tower and the colours of the French flag.

The ECJ therefore considers that there is a likelihood of confusion and confirms France’s opposition to the registration of the Union trademark france.com .

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Sources:

Curia Europe: EU:T:2018:32

Curia Europe: T:2018:381

Picture:

JanClaus / pixabay.com / CC0 License

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconUnion trademark,  domain,  internet domain,  france.com,  domainnames,  ECJ,  EUIPO,  brand mark protection,  trademark registration

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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:

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

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

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

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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