• 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

Smart as trademark often fails: smart:)things remains invalid

16. October 2020

The trademark term smart is a common description of intelligent technology, the CFI ruled and today confirmed the invalidity of the sign smartthings because it is descriptive. The winner in this invalidity proceeding concerning smart:)things is Samsung.

Markenbegriff Smart

Applicant for the trademark smart:)things is smart things solutions GmbH (Germany). It applied for the smart:)things 2012 as an EU trademark in the Nice classes 9, 20 and 35. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Germany) filed an opposition against this trademark registration and applied for a declaration of invalidity of the trademark.

The trade mark applicant defended itself, arguing that the contested mark was distinctive because it was not included in dictionaries when the application was filed in 2012 and, moreover, the concept of the Internet of Things was neither popular nor known by consumers at that time. The term ‘Smart’ was then attributed only to people and not to goods or services.

However, the EUIPO Board of Appeal did not follow this argumentation and declared the trademark smart:)things 2018 invalid- we reported. This decision has been appealed, which has been decided by the European Court of First Instance (CFI) yesterday.

Emoticon not distinctive

Another interesting aspect of the Board of Appeal’s decision was the emoticon in the middle of the sign smart:)things.

The emoticon did not change this assessment, because it was not distinctive, the Board of Appeal decided. On the contrary, the Board of Appeal found that it is common knowledge that the sign becomes a positive smiley symbol directly, via the usual keyboards. In the contested mark, it emphasises the meaning of ‘smart’ as clever and is not distinctive as such, even when all those elements are combined.

CFI confirms the decision of the Board of Appeal

In its judgment, the CFI confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal to annul the contested mark Smartthings. The CFI held that the word element and the trade mark term Smart clearly refer to intelligent technology and that the word element Smart is therefore descriptive of the goods and services claimed.

The CFI found that the trade mark applicant had failed to prove that 2012 Smart was descriptive only for people and not for technology. Moreover, other trade marks containing the trade mark term Smart had long since been refused as descriptive at that time, the CFI stated, citing the refusal of the sign SmartCam in May 2003 and SmartNet in February 2005. More recently, trademark registrations containing the trade mark term Smart have also been refused very often, we can add, for example SMARTLINK, smartactive and the figurative trademark SMART E-BIKE.

The Court of First Instance held that this reinforces the finding that it is incorrect to assume that the relevant public attributes the characteristic ” Smart ” only to the human being, and dismissed the action brought by smart things solutions GmbH.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand name?

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


 

Sources for text und image:

Judgement of CFI ” Smart 😉 things “, EU:T:2020:483

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconEuG,  smart:)things,  smart,  trade mark refused,  trade mark term Smart,  trade marks containing the word Smart,  descriptive term,  trademark smart,  Trademark,  descriptive

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]patent.com

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]