• 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

ECJ: terms in the headings of the Nice Classification

6. October 2020

In a trademark dispute concerning the figurative mark Edison, the ECJ ruled on the interpretation of the terms in the headings of the Nice Classification. The trademark dispute concerned the dispute whether electrical energy was to be regarded as (alternative) fuel at the time of the trademark application – in 2003.

Edison - electrical energyTrademark applicant and plaintiff Edison (Italy) is an energy company with activities throughout Europe. Its activities include the supply, production and sale of electricity and gas, energy and environmental services and the exploration and production of hydrocarbons.

Background to the dispute

In 2003, Edison filed an application with the EUIPO for registration of the figurative Community trade mark Edison for all goods in Nice Class 4, which was the 8th edition of the Nice Classification. However, electricity was not included in Nice Class 4 until the ninth edition of the Nice Classification, which has also been the case in the current edition (the 2020 version of the 11th edition of the Nice Classification (NCL 11-2020), which entered into force on 1 January 2020).

Inadmissible extension of the goods claimed and listed

In August 2013, the EU figurative mark Edison was registered. In 2015, Edison then filed an application with EUIPO to register a surrender of part of the Nice Class 4 goods for which the mark was registered. However, in the new list of goods filed by Edison, “electrical energy” was now claimed. EUIPO refused to do so because of an unlawful extension of the list of goods covered by the application for the Union figurative mark EDISON. Edison appealed against that decision, arguing that “fuels”, as a product in the alphabetical list, was in Class 4 and that the specification under the heading of that class “including motor fuels” covered all material, including non-combustible material such as electrical energy, capable of powering an engine.

Term ‘electrical energy’ did not appear in headings of the Nice Classification

However, the Board of Appeal also rejected the intended alteration of the goods. In particular, it considered that the eighth edition of the Nice Classification did not include the term ‘electrical energy’ either in the general indications or in the alphabetical list of goods in Class 4. According to the applicant, the evidence adduced by Edison was insufficient to show that electrical energy was already included as an ‘alternative fuel’ among the goods in Class 4 of Nice concerned by the application for registration of the Union figurative mark EDISON. Furthermore, the category of goods covered by the English term ‘fuel’ includes only combustible materials which can be used to produce electrical energy, but not electrical energy itself, which is an intangible good.

The European Court of First Instance (CFI, T-471/17, Edison/EUIPO) delivered the same judgment.

Edison: Electrical energy an alternative fuel already in 2003

Before the highest European Court (ECJ), Edison accordingly claimed that that decision wrongly excluded electrical energy from the goods in Class 4 of the eighth edition of the Nice Classification. Electrical energy was already an alternative fuel at the time of filing the trade mark application and this was also supported by evidence. Edison claimed that ‘carburants’/‘motor fuel’, as a product included in the alphabetical list as coming within Class 4, and the specification ‘including motor spirit’ in the heading of that class encompass any material capable of powering an engine, including non-combustible materials such as electrical energy. Moreover, to say that electric vehicles were on the market and then to deny that economic operators (that is to say, the manufacturers of those vehicles) consider electrical energy to be an alternative fuel is contrary to any logic and leads to the unsubstantiation of the decisions of the EUIPO and the CFI.

Additionally, Edison argued that electrical energy is considered by both Union law and national law as a commodity within the meaning of Article 28 TFEU. And electrical energy had been considered in public debate since the end of the 1970s as an “alternative fuel”.

However, the ECJ rejected this ground of appeal on the ground that Edison had failed to identify the precise points of the contested judgment to which its submissions related. Edison did not in any way challenge the application and interpretation of the case-law of the CFI, the ECJ gave reasons for its dismissal of the ground of appeal, nor did Edison prove that the approach adopted by the CFI in the contested paragraphs was vitiated by an error of law.

Interpretation of terms in the headings of the Nice Classification

Nevertheless, the ECJ has in principle given its interpretation of the terms in the class headings of the Nice Classification. Referring to the judgment of 19 June 2012, The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (C-307/10, EU:C:2012:361), Edison had argued, in relation to “group” definitions, that the general indications in the class headings of the Nice Classification should not be given “the most prominent or first meaning that comes to mind”, but that the meaning of those general indications should be sought in the language used by market participants and regulators.

However, the ECJ disagreed. It is true that this “functional” approach claimed by Edison was developed by Advocate General Bot in his Opinion in The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys. However, this is precisely the point on which the ECJ did not follow the Advocate General in his judgment on the case. On the contrary, the ECJ had already held at that time that goods in respect of which trade mark protection is sought must be indicated by the applicant in a sufficiently clear and precise manner to enable the competent authorities and economic operators to determine the scope of the trade mark protection sought on that basis alone.

Edison’s allegation that the grounds of the contested judgment were contradictory was also rejected as unfounded by the ECJ. Even though the CFI acknowledged in its judgment that models of vehicles powered partly or wholly by electricity had already been placed on the market at the time of the application for registration of the trade mark, but the CFI also found that the development of models of vehicles powered by electricity on the European market “actually” took place several years after the application for registration in question. Therefore, the ECJ held that that assessment was not at all contradictory.

Edison’s application was dismissed in its entirety (EU:C:2020:714).

Would you also like to protect or defend your trademark?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

Sources: 

Judgement of ECJ “Edison” and terms of headings in nice classification, EU:C:2020:714

Image:

Oimheidi | pixabay.com | CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconalphabetical list,  alternative fuel,  ECJ,  Edison,  electrical energy,  EU:C:2012:361,  fuel,  headings of the Nice Classification,  interpretation of terms,  Nice Classification,  product category,  The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

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.