• 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

EU Court: Complexity of the motif is relevant – originality is not

13. January 2022

A designed ornamental motif was to be protected as an EU trade mark for patterns. But in vain: the design of a trade mark for surfaces must deviate from the industry norm, the CFI ruled. And the more complex the pattern, the less distinctive it is.

mark for patterns used as surface: ornamental design

Neolith Distribution, SL (Spain), applied for the design of the dispute mark 2019, mainly for floor coverings and porcelain in Nice Class 19. The sign shows an innovatively designed ornamental motif. But the trade mark application was refused by EUIPO for lack of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2017/1001).

The Board of Appeal, appealed by Neolith, also refused the trade mark registration. In its reasoning, it classified the disputed mark as a so-called motif mark/pattern mark, for which a use as a decorative surface design is the most likely. Therefore, in order to be distinctive, the shape would have to deviate significantly from the shape expected by the consumer and from the norm or customary in the industry, but that was not the case in the present case.

It was primarily this assessment that Neolith challenged in an action before the European Court (CFI), which ruled on the matter yesterday (12 January 2022, T-259/21). The applicant argued that the sign applied for was a design mark within the meaning of Article 3(3)(e) of the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626, consisting exclusively of a series of elements which are repeated and make it unique and original on the market.

Neolith also relied on comparable authorised EU trade marks. There were many EU trade marks for designs consisting of repeated geometric figures which were considered to be indicative of their trade origin, which were not excluded from registration merely because they did not deviate from what was relatively common in the sector in question.

Trade mark for patterns: motif trade mark under Art. 3(3)(e)

According to Art. 3(3)(e), in the case of a mark consisting exclusively of a series of elements which are regularly repeated, the mark shall be represented by a representation of the repeated pattern. The representation may be accompanied by a description giving details of the regular repetition of the elements.

The applicant emphasised that it was the world’s leading manufacturer of a porcelain product and cited numerous international awards for its innovative design activities in the environmental field and for the original designs from its company. This also applied to the disputed mark; the design applied for as a trade mark was creatively designed and also worthy of protection in view of the great variety of materials, finishes and decorative patterns in the field of cladding.

Creativity is not relevant for distinctiveness

However, the CFI rejected this line of argument. The finding of distinctiveness does not depend on a finding of a certain degree of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination on the part of the trade mark proprietor, the court explained. Moreover, novelty or originality are not relevant criteria for assessing the distinctiveness of a mark.

Rather, the decisive factor is that the origin of the goods or services covered by the mark must be recognisable and distinguishable from those of other undertakings, it said, citing, inter alia, the 2004 ECJ judgment in SAT.1 v OHIM (C-329/02 P, EU:C:2004:532, paragraph 41).

The applicant could also not rely on Article 3(3)(e) on the issue of distinctiveness, the CFI stated. The fact that the applicant had argued that the requirement for registration of an EU design mark was only the presence of a series of regularly recurring elements could not prevail, as even then the criteria for assessing distinctiveness remained applicable.

Distinctive character of the mark for patterns

However, the trade mark in dispute was applied for to protect goods consisting of coating materials. The trade mark in dispute was thus intended to be applied to the surface of these goods, the CFI stated. In such a case of a trade mark for patterns, the case-law for 3D trade marks applies, according to which only a trade mark which deviates significantly from the business norm can demonstrate distinctive character.

Indeed, the case law for three-dimensional marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself applies by analogy to marks consisting of the two-dimensional representation of the product, and likewise where the mark applied for is a sign consisting of a pattern applied to the surface of a product (2018, Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO, C-26/17 P, EU:C:2018:714).

The CFI pointed out that the complexity of the design was also a relevant element, as it prevented particular details of the design from sticking in the mind and being easily and immediately remembered as a distinctive sign by the relevant public. Therefore, the more complex the mark is in terms of surfaces, the less distinctive it is.

The Board of Appeal therefore did not err in finding, the Court summarised, that the disputed mark was perceived as purely decorative and did not contain a message capable of helping consumers to easily memorise the sign.

Nor did the court agree with Neolith’s reference to other comparable EU trade marks. Rather, as usual, the CFI emphasised that the decisions of the European Courts are not to be based on previous decisions of the EUIPO, but on the relevant regulations. In addition, however, the Board of Appeal had explained that the Neolith case was different from the other “comparable” EU trade marks. And, moreover, it rejected the disputed mark not only because it was not different enough from the business norm, but because the sign would be perceived as a purely decorative element, given its complexity and the diffuse nature of its lines.

The CFI therefore dismissed Neolith’s action in its entirety.

Would you also like to protect or defend a design?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in design law and trade mark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.

 

Sources: 

CFI, T‑259/21, EU:T:2022:1

Image: from the file of the judgment

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconSurface,  Design,  Porcelain,  distinctive character,  Tile,  Flooring,  Creative design,  surface pattern,  Originality and distinctive character,  originality,  Union design mark,  Design mark,  Complexity,  Surface design,  Neolith,  Lack of distinctive character due to originality,  Surface 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

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

© 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]