• 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

Position mark ‘red shoelaces’ refused: lack of distinctive character

18. November 2021

Can ‘red shoelaces’ be a trade mark which merges with the goods? The application for this position mark was refused for lack of distinctive character. The CFI confirmed this with comments on the distinctiveness of ‘design’ in a trade mark.

Streitmarke: fehlende Unterscheidungskraft
mark in dispute: lack of distinctive character

In May 2010, the applicant Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Austria) had applied for the disputed mark – a mark with the description “shoes with laces, at the ends of whose laces red needles are arranged”. In the application, this mark was designated as a position mark.

But the desired trade mark application was refused by the EUIPO for lack of distinctive character, including by the Board of Appeal. This is because according to Art. 7(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009, trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are excluded from registration.
The prevented  applicant for this position mark appealed against its decision before the European Court of First Instance (CFI).

Appearance merges with the goods

It must be noted in general that the perception of a mark is influenced by the nature of the sign; in particular, if the appearance merges with the goods themselves, according to established case law, a mark is considered distinctive only if it deviates significantly from the norm or customary in the sector.

That was the case in the present case, as the Board of Appeal had stated that a part of the goods merged, namely the lace end of the lace-up shoes. Lace ends had a purely decorative character, so they could not be regarded as deviating from the norm. This was all the more true, the Board of Appeal had stated, as there were goods on the market with identical or similar features.

Lack of distinctiveness confirmed by CFI

The CFI upheld this decision. Even assuming that, as the applicant claims, there are no other shoes on the market sold with laces with ends in the colour Pompeian Red, this is not a convincing argument for distinctiveness, the CFI explained. The recognition of the minimum required distinctiveness of the mark applied for did not depend on how new or original it was, but on the fact that it deviated significantly from what was customary in the industry, the court stressed.

The CFI also found that the applicant’s objection that all other “designs” would continue to be available to its competitors was unfounded, as it was not the lack of availability of the claimed sign that was the ground for attribution, but rather the Board of Appeal’s decision was based exclusively on Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Finally, the applicant made a fundamental effort to convince the Board of Appeal that the position mark in dispute was not a mark which merged with the goods. After all, it was not necessary for all the ends of the laces to be red. However, this objection came too late, because at the preceding oral hearing the applicant had expressly conceded that the criterion applicable in the present case was that of a significant deviation from customary practice in the sector – and that is characteristic of trade marks that merge with the goods.

Do you also want to protect or defend a trademark?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in trade mark law and design 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 for text and image:

Judgement of CFI, EU:T:2021:792

 

  • share  13 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icondistinctive character,  distinctive,  Lack of distinctive character,  positional mark,  red laces,  merged with the goods,  design in the 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

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]