• 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

Distinctive character of an EU trademark – to be demonstrated in every EU member state?

25. July 2018

The European Court of Justice ruled in an important issue for all trademark owners. Must the distinctive character acquired through use of the trademark be demonstrated in each EU Member State? This is the decisive conclusion of a long-standing dispute between Nestlé and Mondelez.

Background of the disput

Nestlés 3-dimensional trademark

In July 2006, Nestlé SA was registered as an EU Community trade mark as a three-dimensional trade mark (four identical trapezoidal trapezoidal sheets arranged on a rectangular base) in Class 30 for the goods “confectionery, bakery, pastry, biscuits, cakes and waffles”. EUIPO objected to the registration as “Chocolate, chocolate products, confectionery, sweets”, but published Nestlé’s desired application in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin No. 3/2006.

In March 2007 Cadbury Schweppes plc (now Mondelez UK Holdings & Services) filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trademark granted. The Cancellation Division of EUIPO approved the application and declared the mark invalid in January 2011.

Nestlé appealed against the decision and was right to do so: in December 2012, the EUIPO Second Board of Appeal annulled the decision.

In turn, Mondelez did not agree with this and the case came before the European Court of Justice. In December 2016, a judgment was delivered before the ECJ in this case: The ECJ annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal and Nestlé was defeated in court.

ECJ: Nestlé’s action dismissed

Europe

The ECJ dismissed Nestlé’s action. It is true that it is not necessary for the registration of a trademark under Article 7(3) of Regulation No. 207/2009, which is devoid of any inherent distinctive character in all member states of the Union, to prove for each individual member state that it has acquired distinctive character through use, the court acknowledged. Nevertheless, the evidence adduced must make it possible to prove that the distinctive character has been acquired in all member states of the Union, the ECJ added.

In particular, economic operators may be grouped together in the same distribution network in respect of certain goods or services in several Member States, and those Member States may be treated, especially from the point of view of their marketing strategies, as if they constituted a single and uniform national market, the court explained. Nor does any provision of Regulation No. 207/2009 require that passing off be established by different evidence for each Member State. Therefore, it could not be ruled out that evidence that a particular sign has acquired distinctive character as a result of use would be of value for several Member States, or even for the entire Union.

However, the distinctive character of an EU trademark must be geographically representative, the ECJ ruled. Accordingly, for a mark that is devoid of original distinctive character throughout the Union, it must be shown that it has acquired distinctive character for the entire territory of the Union and not only for a substantial or predominant part of the territory of the Union.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to limit oneself to submitting evidence of trade acceptance which does not cover a part of the Union – even if it concerns only one Member State, although such evidence can be provided comprehensively for all Member States concerned or individually for different Member States or groups of Member States.

The Advocate General had already expressed similar views in his opinion of April 19, 2018: For quantitatively and geographically sufficient proof of the acquisition of distinctive character through use throughout the Union, this diversity within the Union must be taken into account for each product and service, the Advocate General had ruled.

Are you interested in brand or trademark protection?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

Judgement of ECJ, EU:C:2018:596

picture:

kirkandmimi /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconEurope,  lacks distinctiveness,  Mondelez,  Trade Mark Dispute,  EU,  distinctive character,  Nestle,  Cadbury

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]