• 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

Pirelli tyre groove with technical function? ECJ with final judgement

15. June 2021

The ECJ dismissed the action against Pirelli’s protected trademark of a tyre groove. The applicants unsuccessfully argued that the Court of First Instance (CFI) had wrongly held that a single groove constituting the disputed unionmark was not in itself capable of performing a technical function.

Union mark Pirelli tyre groove
Union mark Pirelli tyre groove

Tyre manufacturer Pirelli successfully defended the trademark protection of a tyre groove as a Union figurative mark before the highest European court (ECJ). This tyre groove shows the representation of an L-shaped groove.

Union trademark Pirelli tyre groove

The Cancellation Division and Board of Appeal of the EUIPO had initially declared the trade mark registration of the Pirelli tyre groove invalid in relation to “tyres, solid tyres, half load tyres and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels of all kinds” of Nice Class 12. However, in 2018, the ECJ overturned these decisions and confirmed the disputed trade mark registration in particular also for these goods.

Competitor Yokohama (Japan) challenged this decision before the highest European court (ECJ), which has now issued a final decision in this dispute (EU:C:2021:431). The European Trademark Office (EUIPO) and the European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) from the UK also participated as plaintiffs in two joined cases (C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P).

As in the previous instances, the possible technical function of the Pirelli tyre groove was once again the subject of discussion before the ECJ. Formally, both Yokohama and the EUIPO claimed infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 40/94 in the contested 2018 CFI judgment.

The CFI wrongly held that a single groove, which constituted the disputed mark, was not in itself capable of performing a technical function within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 because the groove appeared in a tyre tread in combination with other elements.

ECJ rejects the complaint

But the ECJ rejected all objections.

Contrary to the applicants’ view, the CFI had not ruled out the possibility that Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 applies to a sign whose shape is necessary to obtain a technical result contributing to the functioning of a product, even if that shape is not in itself sufficient to obtain the intended technical result of that product. The ECJ added that, on the contrary, the CFI had found, in paragraph 72 of the judgment under appeal, that the evidence submitted by Yokohama before the EUIPO did not establish that a single groove in the shape identical to that represented by the mark at issue was capable of achieving the technical result assumed in the contested decision.

And this finding, which results from the court’s (i.e. the CFI’s) free assessment of the facts and evidence, cannot in principle be called into question on appeal, the ECJ explained.

Contradiction in the CFI’s reasoning?

There was also no contradiction in the reasoning of the judgment under appeal, which the applicant Yokohama also argued. The applicant referred in particular to paragraphs 51 and 52, according to which Pirelli did not dispute that some of its tyre models had a groove on the surface of the tyre in the shape represented by the disputed mark. The CFI had also noted that it was understandable, in the light of the case-law cited, that the EUIPO had considered that it could represent a groove similar to those present on the tyres marketed by Pirelli.

However, the CFI pointed to paragraph 53 of its judgment, which is introduced by the word ‘however’. In so doing, the CFI held that the grounds set out in paragraph 51 of that judgment did not in themselves permit the conclusion that the mark at issue represented a tyre or an entire tyre tread.

This in no way constituted a contradiction, the ECJ ruled.

Allegation of distortion

The claimant Yokohama’s allegation that the ECJ’s judgment was based on a distortion of the facts also came to nothing. The ECJ emphasised that Yokohama had not specified exactly which elements had been distorted by the court. It follows that Yokohama’s claim of distortion is not in line with the case-law cited in paragraph 50 of the present judgment and must therefore be rejected as inadmissible.

Similar shape through combination with elements of the tyre tread

Finally, applicant Yokohama contested paragraph 73 of the CFI judgment, in which the CFI held that the registration of the disputed mark, the protection of which is limited to the shape it represents, is not such as to prevent Pirelli’s competitors from manufacturing and marketing tyres having an identical or similar shape when such a shape is combined with other elements of a tyre tread.

However, the ECJ ruled that this was not an error of law. Since the shape at issue was ultimately different from that of the disputed mark, Pirelli could not rely on that mark to prevent the marketing of tyres having that different shape.

And in any case, this finding of the contested judgment was an assessment of the facts by the Court of First Instance, which could not be called into question on appeal – unless there was distortion, the ECJ explained. However, neither Yokohama nor the EUIPO had raised such a claim.

The case was therefore dismissed in its entirety by the ECJ and the 2018 ECJ judgment upheld. The Pirelli tyre groove remains protected as an EU trademark.

 

Sources: 

Judgement of ECJ “Pirelli tyre groove”, EU:C:2021:431

Iamge:

kurtbecker1 | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  22 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconContradiction in reasoning,  Distortion,  judgment,  Misinterpretation,  ECJ,  Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94,  Shape having a technical effect,  technical function,  Pirelli,  Pirelli tyre groove,  Trade mark having a technical function,  Pirelli Judgment ECJ

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

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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]