• 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

3D Mark: Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle

25. September 2020

Can a bottle shape that has been registered as a graphic representation of the 3D mark with a line in the bottle prove its use as a bottle shape with a blade of grass? No, the European Court ruled in its interesting judgment regarding the graphic representation of the 3D mark.

The European Court (CJEU) has made an interesting ruling regarding the graphic representation of a 3D brand (EU:T:2020:439). How accurate must the graphic representation of a 3D trademark be – and how accurate must the description fit?

Facts: bottle shape with blade of grass

Streitmarken Flaschenform Grashalm
left: earlier 3D mark of CEDC; right: 3 D Mark of Underberg

This case, in which the European Court ruled two days ago, concerned a bottle shape which had been applied for and registered as a 3D trademark in 1996 by Underberg (Germany) with a blade of grass stuck in the bottle.

This trademark application was challenged by Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok (Poland) or, after a merger, by CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Poland) and referred to its own earlier 3 D trademark, which shows a very similar bottle shape with a line in the bottle. The applicant CEDC International also referred to the description of its own trademark registration, which described a blade of grass in the bottle. In addition, numerous pieces of evidence were submitted to prove the use of the earlier mark also for the bottle shape with a blade of grass in the bottle.

However, the opposition was rejected by both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (August 2016, R 1248/2015-4, the “contested decision”). The description of a trademark must match exactly the submitted graphic representation of that trademark. However, if – as in the case of the earlier mark of CEDC International – a line is represented in the bottle, this is a line and not a blade of grass. The description of the earlier mark cannot be used here for clarification or clarification purposes, since it does not correspond to the representation showing a line and not a blade of grass as described.

A line is not a blade of grass

The European Court (CJEU) therefore had to decide the question of how to classify a graphic representation which differs slightly from the description of the mark. The court confirmed the view of the Board of Appeal. A graphic representation which lacks precision and clarity does not make it possible to determine the scope of the protection applied for, the CJEU ruled. The CJEU emphasized that the decisive factor for the scope of protection of the trademark is the way it is perceived solely on the basis of the sign in its registered form, and referred in this context to the Deichmann judgment concerning the sports shoe with dashed lines (EU:T:2018:7).

Only a more realistic representation of a blade of grass or the real representation of such a blade of grass stuck in a bottle could have clearly established its presence in the earlier mark, the Court specified. However, such a blade of grass did not fall within the exact scope of protection of the earlier mark.

The alleged presence of a blade of grass is not apparent from the representation, but only from the description. However, that description contains a misinterpretation of the representation, since it interprets the graphic element of the line beyond the visible, by stating that that element is a blade of grass. However, the object of protection is defined solely by the representation of the mark contained in the registration certificate, the CJEU emphasized. This could possibly be made more precise by the description – if the description corresponds to the representation. But this was not the case here.

No change in the scope of protection through use of TM

Moreover, the fact that the applicant had adduced evidence to prove use of the earlier mark also for the shape of a bottle with a blade of grass in it was not relevant, the Court added. The determination of the exact subject matter of the protection granted by a trademark cannot be changed in any way by the actual use of the trademark on the market, the CJEU ruled.

Would you also like to protect or defend your trademark?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorized to represent you in any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources: 

Judgement ‘Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle’, CJEU (EU:T:2020:439)

Image:

AStoKo | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  25 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icondescription of the mark,  blade of grass,  judgment,  representation of the mark,  line,  bottle shape,  graphic representation of the 3D mark,  Underberg,  earlier mark,  3D Mark,  use of the mark,  graphic representation,  CJEI

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark 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

  • 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]