• 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

iGrill no European word mark

17. October 2018

Is “iGrill” a new creation from a single, meaningless word? Or is it a neologism from the prefix “i” for interactive and the self-explanatory element “grill”? Weber Grill again loses the dispute about the well-known trademark before the European Court of Justice.

Is iGrill an interactive grill?

iGrillAfter the plaintiff Weber-Stephen Products LLC lost the legal dispute about the registration of the IR trademark “iGrill” in February 2018 (T-35/17, Is iGrill an interactive grill? Weber Grill cannot protect the word mark), the European Court of Justice today reached its decision on the registration of the European word mark “iGrill”. The case Weber-Stephen Products LLC (T-822/17) decided today focused on the question whether iGrill is descriptive for the class of goods applied for. These are Nice Class 9 (inter alia, computer software, mobile devices to assist persons with grilling and cooking) and Nizza Class 21 (inter alia, kitchen and grill utensils and containers; grill covers). Weber-Stephen Products claimed that the ‘iGrill’ was irrelevant in any event and, moreover, not descriptive of the classes of goods applied for, since the goods in question were not barbecues.

Trademark registration refused by EUIPO

The Board of Appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union (Is iGrill an interactive grill? Weber Grill loses dispute over the word mark) considered that the letter “i” as a prefix referred both to the word “interactive” and to information technology and that the word “grill” referred to a cooking appliance – hence the mark applied for was descriptive of the category of goods chosen. They therefore refuse to register the mark sought.

Word mark must not be descriptive with any possible meaning

In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed this view. The CJEU stressed that consumers will divide a word mark into elements that suggest a concrete meaning to them or resemble words they know. A word mark consists entirely of letters, words or phrases – without any specific graphic element. Therefore, upper or lower case is also irrelevant in the assessment of a word mark.

Under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, a word sign must be refused registration if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned. That is the case with iGrill, since it may also mean “grill with the quality of being intelligent or using information technology”.

Weber Grill was defeated

The CJEU rejected the plaintiff Weber-Stephen’s objection that the corresponding grills had no computer interface at all and that “iGrill” was therefore by no means descriptive. The fact that the mark applied for describes a characteristic which does not – yet – exist according to the current state of the art does not preclude consumers from perceiving it as descriptive. A word mark applied for may be descriptive whether or not the goods are available on the market.

The applicant also argued that reference dictionaries from the English-speaking world had a number of meanings for the letter ‘i’ ‘i’, but that none of those meanings referred to the English words ‘interactive’, ‘intelligent’ or ‘information technology’. That objection was also rejected. The CFI stressed that the EUIPO was not obliged to provide proof, for example by means of a dictionary. The question as to whether a sign can be registered as an EU trademark must be assessed exclusively on the basis of the relevant EU legislation as interpreted by the EU judiciary. It was therefore sufficient for the Board of Appeal to take a decision based on a review of the descriptiveness as interpreted by the case-law.

Weber Grill loses with this judgement again the legal dispute for many years around the registration of the well-known mark “iGrill” as European word mark.

Would you also like to protect your brand or trademark?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

Curia Europe: T:2018:693 “iGrill”

Picture:

vadura /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icondescriptive character,  EU word mark,  EUIPO,  European Word sign,  iGrill,  Weber Grill,  Weber-Stephen,  wordmark word 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

© 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.