• 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 union mark Flower refused as descriptive

24. January 2020

The European Court has rejected trademark protection as a 3D Union trademark for the shape of a flower. A flower symbolizes a scent and as such is descriptive of the goods claimed, which could be scented – even if scent is not relevant for some of these goods.

Trade mark must not be descriptive

If a sign is descriptive of the goods or services claimed, it has no function as an indication of origin for consumers. It is therefore an absolute ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b). c of EU Regulation No. 207/2009, which does not distinguish between word marks and figurative or three-dimensional marks. In practice, however, it may be more difficult to prove the distinctiveness of a 3D mark than that of a word or figurative mark.

Board of Appeal introduced new ground for refusal

3D union mark flowerHowever, distinctiveness was not the point at issue in the hearing of a flower as a 3D Union trademark before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Rather, the applicant Refan Bulgaria OOD (Bulgaria) claimed that the Board of Appeal had wrongly assessed the flower as a 3D trade mark as descriptive. In addition, the plaintiff fundamentally opposed the refusal of the mark on the basis of its alleged descriptiveness under Article 7(1)(b). c – because this ground for refusal had not been introduced by the Examining Office but only by the Board of Appeal at the hearing.

The Board of Appeal had found that consumers would perceive the flower-shaped mark applied for as a symbol of the fragrance of the goods concerned, which is an essential characteristic of the goods claimed. Since it was only in the contested decision that the Board of Appeal found that that absolute ground for refusal existed, the case should have been remitted to the examiner, the applicant claimed.

The CJEU dismissed that claim. The CJEU held that the Board of Appeal had the right to reopen the examination of the absolute grounds for refusal on its own initiative at any time before registration, including, where appropriate, the right to introduce a new ground for refusal, the CJEU held, referring to Article 45(3) of Regulation 2017/1001. The CJEU also held that the Board of Appeal had correctly informed the applicant of the new ground for refusal in a letter, which gave the applicant an opportunity to comment on that point.

Floral scent a sufficient justification for all goods?

The Court dealt in detail with the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal was wrong to consider the flower as a 3D mark to be descriptive. In particular, the applicant had complained that, in the case of goods such as soap and candles, the Board of Appeal had given the floral scent associated with the refused mark as a reason for refusing registration of the mark, but had not given a separate reason for goods such as ‘toiletries’.

The Court first confirmed the Board of Appeal’s obligation to state reasons for all goods and services. However, goods can be grouped together into homogeneous groups for which a common statement of reasons is then sufficient, the CJEU added. The Court examined in detail whether this applied in the present case.

It should be noted that “toiletries” also include personal care products, the CJEU stated. “Toiletries” are not only products intended for washing, but in general daily personal care or beauty products. The same applies to “cleaning and perfumery preparations”, as these goods can also be characterised by a fragrance, as can be seen from the word “perfume”. It follows that, in the present case, those goods form a sufficiently homogeneous category or group of goods including soaps and candles, the Court held.

Flower descriptive of anything which may be fragrant

Blume abgelehnte Marke
Flower 3D Unionmark of Refan Bulgaria

This is not called into question by the fact that those goods may also include objects for which an odour is not relevant, the Court added.

A sign must be refused registration under Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive. (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned. It is not necessary that the sign actually be used in a descriptive manner at the time of the application for registration, the CJEU explained. It is sufficient that the possibility exists, even if it is only one of several possibilities.

The CJEU added that it is also irrelevant whether the characteristic described is essential. Therefore, a decorative character which the applicant claimed for the mark applied for did not prevent it from also designating another characteristic of the goods concerned, namely their smell.

The applicant had argued that the flower did not constitute a specific flower and that consumers could not therefore expect a specific scent. The mark applied for was therefore not descriptive of the scent of the goods but had decorative purposes.

The Court rejected that argument. The CJEU considered the 3D union mark “Flower” to be descriptive for all the cleaning, beauty and personal care products claimed – quasi because these products could be fragrant.

Reference to the territory of the entire EU

Moreover, the Board of Appeal had not expressly ruled on the relevant territory which it took into account in its analysis. The applicant complained about that, since the relevant territory in the EU is also relevant for the assessment, in which consumer perception is decisive.

However, the CJEU confirmed the Board of Appeal’s analysis. Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 provides that grounds for non-registrability shall apply even if they exist in only part of the Union. Consequently, the CJEU clarified that the analysis of absolute grounds for refusal relates to the territory of the entire European Union. In the case of marks other than word marks, it must also be assumed that the assessment of descriptiveness will be the same throughout the European Union, the Court added.

This aspect of the CJEU’s judgment is all the more interesting because the Court has repeatedly ruled that proof that a Union trademark has acquired distinctive character through use in the Union must be provided for each individual member state.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

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


 

Sources: 

Judgement of CJEU “Flower as 3D Marke” EU:T:2019:849

Image:

JillWellington / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  31 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconflower,  possibility,  CJEU,  territory of the entire EU,  descriptive,  territory in the EU concerned,  Article 7(1)(b) c,  3D,  3D Trade Mark,  absolute ground for refusal,  3D union mark,  3D Union trade mark

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]