• 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

Word mark “protection” for Portuguese bags refused

4. February 2019

Once again, the European Court has to decide on word marks which are descriptive terms in one of the Union countries or which even belong to the general vocabulary. In a recent ruling of the European Court of Justice, the word mark of the German word “Schutz” in meaning of “protection” was rejected.

The German word “Schutz” (english translation = protection) was filed in August 2016 by a Portuguese company as a European word mark for goods of the Nice Class 18, essentially for various bags and purses. Whether the term must be considered descriptive or not had to be decided by the court of the European Union (EuG) this week.

Trademark registration “Schutz” was rejected as descriptive

The Board of Appeal, like the EUIPO examiner, had refused the registration of the trade mark on the ground that it was descriptive. The Board of Appeal stated that the mark applied for consisted exclusively of the word “Schutz”, which was part of everyday German vocabulary and did not deviate from the grammatical or spelling rules of the German language. The Board of Appeal also examined whether that mark was sufficiently descriptive of the goods in question. The Board of Appeal found that the consumer was directly informed that one of the characteristics of all the goods in question was that they offered a certain type of protection.

Trade marks shall not be registered if they consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or services or other characteristics thereof (pursuant to Article 7.1 of EU Regulation No 207/2009).

The applicant does not deny that the word “Schutz” is part of everyday German vocabulary. In particular, it submits that the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the word sign “Schutz” was descriptive of the product at issue. From their point of view, the goods in question have many other characteristics, such as the ability to transport, preserve or present goods as fashion articles, but not to protect them. It argued that consumers could only assume, as an indication, that the goods in question afford a certain degree of protection to the goods being transported. There is therefore no direct and exclusive relationship between the mark applied for and the goods concerned.

The applicant relies on similar trade mark registrations

"Schutz"The applicant also relied on the registration of several trade marks, including one in Brazil, containing or consisting exclusively of the term ‘protection’, for goods which it considers to be similar or identical to those in the present case. This was rejected by the European Court of Justice (CJEU), which made it clear that the European Union’s trade mark system is an autonomous system, independent of any national system. Decisions taken in the Member States or even in third countries are not binding on the EUIPO and the European courts. The Court added that there could be no equality in illegality. It is therefore not possible to rely on an unlawful act committed in order to obtain an identical decision.

Protection is descriptive of a characteristic of the goods

The CJEU had to examine whether the term protection was descriptive of a characteristic of the goods concerned. The Court recalled that the descriptiveness of a sign can be assessed both in relation to the perception of the public concerned and in relation to the goods or services concerned. Furthermore, it is sufficient for a trade mark registration to be excluded if the word mark designates, in at least one of its possible meanings, a characteristic of the goods or services concerned. And this is what the Board of Appeal rightly held for the term “protection”, the CJEU held.

Legality of decisions of the Board of Appeal

The CJEU referred to the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 2015 (T:2015:613), in which the legality of the decisions of the Board of Appeal was clarified. Decisions of the Board of Appeal are bound decisions and not discretionary decisions, the CJEU had ruled in 2015. The decisions of the Board of Appeal were to be taken solely on the basis of Regulation No. 207/2009 as interpreted by the Union judge and not on the basis of an earlier decision practice of the EUIPO (formerly: OHIM).

Maybe also interesting:

  • Avanti: Union figurative mark, general vocabulary or advertising slogan?
  • SHERPA versus SHERPA: Word mark identical or similar?
  • St. Andrews refused as Unionwordmark for events

Would you also like to protect your 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

Source:

European Court of Justice Word mark “Schutz” T:2019:38 (in portuguese)

Picture:

geralt / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconEU

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

  • 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

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

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

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

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney 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.