• 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

Aldi mark CUCINA rejected: descriptive character

14. July 2021

Aldi failed before the European Court (CFI) in the trademark registration of the Aldi trademark CUCINA, which is well-known in Germany. Aldi had unsuccessfully applied for trade mark protection for an EU figurative mark CUCINCA. The EU trade mark CUCINA is descriptive and was therefore refused.

Aldi Marke CUCINAIn October 2019, Aldi applied for European trademark protection for its well-known CUCINA trade mark in Germany as an Union figurative trademark; however, the trade mark registration was refused because it was descriptive of the goods in the food sector for which trade mark protection was claimed. Moreover, not only a word or term can be descriptive, but also a figurative mark or a word and figurative mark, which is then referred to as an absolute ground for refusal pursuant to Art. 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/100. c of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

Descriptive mark – Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)

According to the EU Regulation (Article 7(2) (EU) 2017/1001) and general case law, a descriptive mark is excluded from trade mark protection already if it is understood in its descriptive meaning even in only one part of the Union. Therefore, the Board of Appeal can only refer to, for example, “the relevant public” of a single EU country when examining whether a mark is descriptive.

Accordingly, EUIPO (both the Office and the Board of Appeal) had refused registration of the EU figurative mark CUC’INA. The word ‘cucina’ was part of the basic vocabulary of the Italian language and, since the goods in respect of which registration was sought were foodstuffs, the target public would understand CUCINA as indicating that those goods were commonly used or prepared in the kitchen.

Furthermore, it is also a well-known fact that the German word ‘Küche’ not only indicates the room of a house but also means ‘type of food, of preparation’, in particular in the sense of French cuisine or bourgeois cuisine.

Aldi mark CUCINA

This was the starting point of Aldi’s appeal against this decision, which was decided today before the European Court of First Instance (CFI). Aldi argued that the Board of Appeal had made a contradictory assessment by finding that the word ‘cucina’ referred to the room of the house where cooking, baking or food preparation was usually carried out.

Since the goods in respect of which registration was sought were intended to be eaten, the sign applied for merely communicated that they were edible foodstuffs. It is therefore irrelevant whether the goods are normally prepared or consumed in the kitchen.

Above all, Aldi disputes that the EU figurative mark CUCINA has a descriptive meaning for consumers. On the contrary, the sign applied for is empty of content in relation to the goods applied for and is therefore not descriptive of their specific characteristics. The word “cucina” by itself does not mean anything for foodstuffs without further additions, which would require an addition such as “cucina italiana”.

Aldi mark CUCINA – rejected by CFI

CFI dismissed Aldi’s action. The Board of Appeal was right to assume that, from the point of view of the relevant public, the word element “cucina” refers directly to the room of the house where cooking, baking or otherwise preparing food usually takes place, namely a “kitchen”, the European Court ruled. Moreover, the figurative element also supported such an association, as the image corresponded to a cooking pot – which is, of course, an object for the kitchen.

Aldi had argued in vain that there were other possible associations for the figurative part of the CUCINA mark: a bonnet, a stylised crown, a puzzle piece or a weight for an old scale could be recognised in it, Aldi had argued. The CFI did not follow this. By its shape alone, the EU figurative mark CUCINA would be perceived as a cooking pot, the court ruled, and this would be reinforced by the word CUCINA.

For this reason, the CFI added to its judgment, the Aldi mark CUCINA was also devoid of distinctive character, because a sign which describes characteristics of goods within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 is not distinctive. c of Regulation 2017/1001 is necessarily devoid of distinctive character for those goods within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, the court explained.

Aldi’s action was dismissed in its entirety, and the Aldi mark CUCINA is not granted European trade mark protection.

Would you also like to register or defend a trademark?

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

 

Sources: 

Judgement of CFI, Aldi mark CUCINA, EU:T:2021:433

Image:

own design, based on padrinan | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconAldi,  Aldi CUCINA,  Aldi mark,  Aldi mark CUCINA,  Art. 7(1)(c). c of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001,  descriptive mark,  EU figurative mark,  figurative 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

  • 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.