• 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

Multilingual word mark: EN capable of protection – FR and GER but not

7. September 2020

May a French word mark and German word mark be refused on the grounds of lack of distinctiveness, even though the identical English version of this word mark is capable of protection? The pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva lost in this case concerning the multilingual word mark.

mehrsprachige WortmarkeThe pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva lost before the European Court (EuG) in this trademark dispute about a word mark for a migraine remedy. The background is quickly told: Pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Israel) applied for registration of the word mark “Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux” as a European word mark and also the German counterpart to this, “Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben” was also applied for as a European word mark.

Multilingual word mark: EN original, FR and GER not?

However, the European Trademark Office (EUIPO) rejected the desired trademark registrations. The expressions “Weniger Migräne” and “Mehr vom Leben” were not particularly unusual with regard to the rules of German syntax, grammar, phonetics or semantics. The same applies to the French word mark, which also corresponds to the rules of French syntax, grammar and semantics. Thus, these sentences convey to the relevant public a simple, clear and unambiguous message which is not capable of conferring on them any particular originality or resonance, both the EUIPO and the Board of Appeal decided.

Teva appealed against this decision to the European Court (CJEU, T:2020:330 and EU:T:2020:329). In particular, Teva claimed a violation of the principle of equal treatment. Teva referred to the English language version of the word mark “LESS MIGRAINE, MORE MOMENTS”, which had been registered as an EU trademark.

Breach of the principle of equal treatment

But the European Court rejected Teva’s objection. The court pointed out that the CFI/CJEU is not bound by the decision-making practice of the EUIPO in its review of legality. Moreover, for reasons of legal certainty and also for reasons of proper administration, the examination of each trademark application must be strict and comprehensive in order to prevent trademarks from being wrongly registered or declared invalid. Such an examination must therefore be carried out in each individual case, the EuG stressed.

CJEU: Lack of distinctive character of the mark in FR and DE

Accordingly, the court reviewed the EUIPO decision to declare the French and German word marks to be devoid of distinctive character. Although word marks as slogans can convey a more or less objective, even simple, message and still be capable of informing the consumer of the commercial origin of the goods or services concerned, the CJEU explained the established case law. This applies in particular to word signs which have a certain originality or resonance.

In fact, the trade mark applied for could give the relevant public hope that it would dream of an alleviation of its migraine pain. That is evidence of the advertising character of the word signs, but it is not appropriate to indicate the commercial origin of those goods and services. Therefore, the CJEU confirmed the lack of distinctiveness of the word marks in French and German.

EN Version of the multilingual word mark: more unusual

The CJEU stressed that the Board of Appeal had examined with particular care whether, in view of the English language version of the word mark and its status as a protected Union trademark, a decision in the same direction had to be taken for the French and German versions of the word mark. However, the Board of Appeal explicitly stated that the Union trademark LESS MIGRAINE, MORE MOMENTS, relied on by the applicant Teva, differed from the two marks applied for because of its blurred and unusual nature.

Therefore, the CJEU dismissed Teva’s two actions and confirmed the refusal to register the mark as a multilingual word mark in French and German.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Our attorneys will be happy to advise you. Please contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!

 

Sources: 

Judgement of CJEU, T:2020:330

Judgement of CJEU, T:2020:329

Image:

TeeFarm | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconECJ,  judgment,  lack of distinctiveness,  less migraine. LESS MIGRAINE,  migraine,  MORE MOMENTS,  multilingual word mark,  TEVA,  Trademark Application,  trademark registration

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.