• 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

(Figurative) mark Orange – colour mark or figurative mark

20. September 2021

The CFI has ruled in a long-running trademark dispute over the Union mark Orange between the parties to the dispute MHCS versus Lidl. Is the mark Orange a colour mark or a figurative mark? In any case, the Board of Appeal was not allowed to examine this independently and on own motion.

The facts

mark Orange- figurative or colour mark?In February 1998, SA Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, the legal predecessor of the applicant MHCS (France), applied for registration of an Unionmark claiming “”Champagne wines” of Nice Class 33. A certain shade of the colour orange was to be protected by this mark, a figurative mark in the application form.

In the trademark application this was noted as follows: “scientific definition: trichromatic coordinates/colour characteristics: x 0.520, y 0.428 – diffuse reflectance 42.3% – dominant wavelength 586.5 mm – excitation purity 0.860 – colorimetric purity: 0.894”.

Colour mark or figurative mark

It was not until March 2007 that this mark Orange was registered at the EUIPO, because the Trademark Office didn’t see any distinctive character of the mark Orange. However, in 2006, SA Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin won the desired trademark application before the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO (R 148/2004-2). Importantly, the examiner had found that it was a figurative mark (which is how the Orange mark had been registered), but the Second Board of Appeal found that it was a colour mark.

Colour mark or figurative mark – is there any difference at all? In a nutshell: Yes! Because colour marks have no limitation in shape, whereas figurative marks have a clearly defined contour. This contour influences the consumer’s perception and also affects the distinctiveness of a mark.

Application for invalidity of the mark Orange – by Lidl

In November 2015, the intervener, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Germany), filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested mark. Lidl argued that the indication of the claimed shade on the basis of a scientific definition was not sufficient and that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character.

The Cancellation Division rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity, but the First Board of Appeal overturned this decision in February 2020 and referred the case back to the Cancellation Division. In this decision, the First Board of Appeal reviewed the nature of the mark in dispute, i.e. whether it was a colour mark or a figurative mark. The disputed mark had been registered as a figurative mark – and the choice of the type of mark was a matter for the applicant. The choice of a particular classification could not be considered a manifest error in the present case, the First Board of Appeal ruled. The Second Board of Appeal was not empowered to reclassify the mark ex officio, namely as a colour mark. For this reason, the First Board of Appeal also referred the case back to the Cancellation Division; the parties should be able to re-examine their rights upon reclassification of the mark in dispute as a figurative mark.

MHCS appealed against this decision before the European Court of Justice (European Court of First Instance (CFI)).

Review of the nature of the mark – admissible or not?

In essence, MGCS argued that the First Board of Appeal had wrongly reviewed the nature of the mark in dispute, as this was not an issue raised by the parties.

The CFI upheld this claim and held that the First Board of Appeal had exceeded its jurisdiction. This was because the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 26 April 2006 (R 148/2004-2) had concluded the registration procedure, and in that decision the mark in dispute was determined to be a colour mark, the CFI explained. It is true that, according to case law, the EUIPO may base a decision – in addition to the facts and evidence submitted by the parties – on further facts which are common knowledge, i.e. which may be known to anyone and which were established in the course of the invalidity proceedings. However, this was not the case in the present case, the CFI ruled.

The EUIPO had wrongly not corrected the registration of the contested mark as an “other mark” or as a “colour mark” instead of a “figurative mark”, the court added. This finding of the CFI is all the more interesting as the applicant had never requested a reclassification of the contested mark in the EUIPO database. According to the CFI, the EUIPO should therefore have reclassified the Orange mark on its own motion.

Infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

In addition, the CFI also upheld MHCS’s plea that the review of the nature of the mark infringed its rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This was because the First Board of Appeal had not questioned the parties, in particular the applicant, on the issue of the nature of the challenged mark Orange, which it had raised of its own motion. In doing so, however, it had infringed the applicant’s rights of defence guaranteed by the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001, the CFI ruled.

The rights of defence could in no way be preserved by referring the case back to the Cancellation Division, the court explained. This is because the interpretation given by the First Board of Appeal to the Cancellation Division, to which the case is remitted pursuant to Article 71(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001, is binding. In the present case, in the light of the reasoning of the contested decision, that interpretation necessarily would lead to the contested mark being classified as a figurative mark.

However, this did not happen. In the end, the CFI upheld the action of MHCS and annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of February 2020 (R 2392/2018-1). So, MHCS’s orange mark is now considered a colour mark.

Do you also want to protect or defend a product?

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


 

Sources (text and image): 

Judgement of CFI  ‘(figurative) mark Orange’, EU:T:2021:592

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconChampagne,  colour mark,  colour mark or figurative mark,  colour mark orange,  distinctive character,  distinctive character colour mark,  Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion,  figurative mark,  Lidl,  mark orange,  MHCS,  Orange

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

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte 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.