• 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

Samsung victorious in nullity proceedings for smart:)things

10. December 2018

Samsung wins the smart:)things nullity case before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. The decision confirms that “smart” has no chance of trademark protection and that emoticons are not automatically distinctive.

smart:)thingsSamsung Electronics GmbH (Germany) had filed an opposition against the registration of the Union trade mark applied for smart:)things for goods in Nice Classes 9, 20 and 35, but initially failed with the opposition before the Opposition Division. The Opposition Division found that the emoticon in the disputed mark had a minimum distinctive character and therefore did not regard the mark as purely descriptive overall.

Samsung challenged that reasoning. That the ubiquitous use and positive connectivity conveyed by that “smiley” emoticon does not lead to an unmistakable sign as a whole, but is downright descriptive by conveying the message that the device leads to a cleverer and more user-friendly device, Samsung argued.

This argument was accepted by the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in the present decision. “smart” and “things” are clearly descriptive, including the combination of both. The emoticon, in turn, promotes positive feelings and, in combination with the word elements, also has a descriptive effect, since the mark as a whole describes “smartness” of the functions of its devices, according to the reasoning behind this decision.

The Board of Appeal stressed that no trademark protection should be allowed for terms which refer to technologically advanced solutions, but which are not yet popular or well known on the date of filing. Such terms are susceptible to being highly sought-after in the following years and then to being descriptive for very many areas.

Are unknown words distinctive when filed?

The trade mark applicant, smart things solutions GmbH (Germany), had argued that the contested mark was distinctive because it had not been included in dictionaries when the union trade mark in dispute was filed in 2012 and, moreover, the concept of the Internet of Things was neither popular nor well-known among consumers at the time. The Board of Appeal dismissed that argumentation. The term must remain free for all market participants, since it is used very frequently for different technologies. The fact that it was not included in a dictionary in 2012 was irrelevant to the case.

The word element “smart” is very popular in new trademark applications, which are, however, regularly refused for registration by the EUIPO. The ruling mentions a small selection of the latest trademark refusals:

  • Smartflex, R 424/2018-4 of 03/07/2018;
  • SMARTSURFACE, R 1765/2017-2 of 25/05/2018;
  • 20/11/2018, R 835/2018-4, smart:)things
  • SmartLogin, R 2219/2017-4 of 23/04/2018;
  • smart color, R 1950/2017-4 of 16/02/2018;
  • SmartTel+, R 861/2017-2 of 16/01/2018;
  • SMARTPALLET, R 1486/2017-4 of 21/12/2017;
  • smart sensor business 4.0, R 973/2017-4 of 14/11/2017;
  • smartID+, R 2430/2016-4 of 08/11/2017;
  • SMART E-BIKE (fig.), R 382/2017-1 of 07/11/2017;
  • SMARTnet, R 238/2017-2 of 13/10/2017;
  • SMART+, R 1134/2017-4 of 05/10/2017;
  • SMARTLINK, R 512/2017-5 of 21/09/2017;
  • smartactive, R 673/2017-5 of 07/09/2017;
  • smart flow, R 492/2017-4 of 06/09/2017;
  • SMART 1, R 730/2017-5 of 04/09/2017;
  • SMARTMEMBRANE, R 786/2016-1 of 31/08/2017;
  • SMARTKID, R 2263/2016-4 of 16/06/2017;
  • SMARTBALL, R 117/2018-4 of 08/10/2018

Emoticons are not automatically distinctive

The emoticon does not alter that assessment because it is not distinctive. Rather, it is known that 🙂 directly becomes a positive smiley symbol via the usual keyboards. In the contested mark it underlines the meaning of “smart” as clever and is not distinctive as such even in combination of all those elements. The representation of the sign  in green makes it visible in the disputed mark only separately from the representation in the sign. However, according to general case-law, elements in a particular colour are not in themselves distinctive ((03/07/2003,T-122/01, Best Buy), (07/06/2016, T-220/15, We care)).

Accordingly, the Board of Appeal found that the mark at issue was wholly descriptive of the goods and services concerned and declared the mark smart:)things invalid on 20 November.

Do you want to protect a trade mark or brand?

 

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

Source for text and picture:

Decision of EUIPO of 20 Nov 2018 smart:)things

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconSamsung,  Trade Mark,  Trade Mark Application,  smart:)things,  smart,  Unionmark,  Lack of distinctive character

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]