Get documents about "lindt trademark ecj
W
Description
article jon wyness lindt trademark ecj
Document Sample
Legal Decision: EU
Lindt hops off after bitter
trademark rejection
THE CASE:
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
The Court of Justice of the European Union
24 May 2012
MW Trade Marks’ Jonathan Wyness examines the CJEU’s refusal to register a
three dimensional mark for chocolate goods
On 18 May 2004, chocolate maker Lindt the European Union, in accordance with small bell, are not sufficiently different from those
filed a community trademark application Article 7(3) of the CTMR. of the basic shapes commonly used for wrappers
for a three-dimensional sign, consisting for chocolate and chocolate products and, more
of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with Decision of the CJEU specifically, chocolate rabbits. Therefore, they
a red ribbon and which, according to the On 18 August 2008, Lindt appealed to the were considered not likely to be remembered by
description in the application, is red, gold Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the relevant public as indicators of commercial
and brown. which held that the shape was considered to origin. The gold-coloured wrapping in the shape
The application was for “Chocolate and be a typical shape for chocolate rabbits and, of a sitting rabbit with a pleated red ribbon and
chocolate products” in Nice class 30. therefore, devoid of any distinctive character. a small bell, was not considered by the court to
On 14 October 2005, the Office for Concerning the gold foil wrapping, the be substantially different from the wrappers of
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) court held that Lindt’s chocolate rabbit is not the goods at issue which are commonly used in
rejected the application on the basis of the only one wrapped in gold foil and that trade, thus coming naturally to mind as a typical
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (the possible originality is not sufficient to establish form of wrapper for those goods, according to
Community Trade Mark Regulation “CTMR”), distinctive character. the CJEU.
finding that the mark was devoid of any As regards the pleated red ribbon, tied The court also found that the graphic
distinctive character. Furthermore, the mark to form a bow and carrying a small bell, the elements, in particular the eyes, whiskers and
was considered not to have acquired distinctive court held that there was no information in the paws, do not mean that the sign at issue is capable
character through use, under Article of protection. They were considered
7(3) of that Regulation, because the everyday elements that all shapes of
evidence related only to Germany. “This case highlights the continuing chocolate rabbits normally present, and
On 11 June 2008, the Fourth uncertainty for applications to they are not of an artistic level such that
Board of Appeal of OHIM dismissed the consumer could perceive them as
Lindt’s appeal. It found that none register three dimensional shapes being an indication of the origin of the
of the elements which constituted
the mark, namely the shape, the
before OHIM. Shape marks are goods at issue.
The court rejected Lindt’s argument
gold foil and the red ribbon with a specifically included in the that, outside Germany, the chocolate
small bell, considered separately or Easter bunny is largely unknown and
as a whole, could give it a distinctive definition of a sign under Article therefore it has an inherent distinctive
character in relation to the goods 4 of the CTMR, but in practice, are character in the other member states. It
concerned. It held that rabbits are one is common knowledge, according to the
of the typical shapes which chocolate much harder to register.” court, that chocolate rabbits, which are
products may take, especially at Easter. often sold at Easter, are not unknown
Consequently, the mark was held to outside Germany. The court therefore
be devoid of any distinctive character within documents before them to call into question considered that it must be assumed that, in the
the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the CTMR the assessments of the Fourth Board of Appeal, absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, the
throughout the European Union, given that nor those of the examiner, which found that it impression created in the mind of the consumer
there is no reason to presume that consumers in is common to decorate chocolate animals or by the mark for which registration was sought,
Germany perceive the shape at issue differently their wrapping with bows, ribbons and bells. which consists of a three-dimensional sign, is
from consumers in other member states. Therefore, small bells and bows are common the same in the European Union as a whole.
Furthermore, the documents submitted elements in the case of chocolate animals. Accordingly, the mark is devoid of any distinctive
by Lindt, since they related only to Germany, Regarding the global assessment of the mark character throughout the European Union.
were held not to lead to the conclusion that for which registration was sought, the court found The court considered that it is thus in the
the mark had acquired for the goods at issue that the characteristics of the combination of the European Union as a whole that the mark
distinctive character through use throughout shape, the colours and the pleated ribbon with a must have acquired distinctive character
64 Intellectual Property magazine July/August 2012 www.intellectualpropertymagazine.com
through use in order to be registrable under throughout the EU for relatively common This case highlights the importance of
Article 7(3) of the CTMR. shapes is much higher than for word marks. putting forward your strongest case at the
However, the court noted that even if Lindt The difficulties are further exacerbated earliest opportunity. It can be difficult to introduce
had demonstrated the distinctive character by inconsistencies between the treatment new evidence of acquired distinctiveness at
of the sign at issue acquired through use in of apparently analogous cases and a lack of a later stage. Also, it has long been accepted
the three member states that it cited in their consistency of approach by national registrars that OHIM is not bound by earlier decisions
appeal, namely Germany, Austria and the UK, within the EU. Lindt produced evidence of the of OHIM examiners, or examiners at national
the supporting documents furnished were not registration of their chocolate bunny shape mark EU registries.
capable of proving that that sign had acquired in 15 EU countries to indicate that, not only was it Author
distinctive character in all of the member an inherently registrable shape, but the fact it had
states at the date of filing of the application been accepted without evidence of use in those
for registration of the mark at issue. countries meant that it was not a common shape
in those EU countries. Therefore, the evidence of
Summary use for the purposes of the present appeal could
This case highlights the continuing uncertainty legitimately be confined to Germany, UK and
for applications to register three dimensional Austria. Lindt tried to supplement its evidence
shapes before OHIM. Shape marks are of use before the CJEU, a practice which OHIM
specifically included in the definition of a sign challenged on the basis that the issue was whether
under Article 4 of the CTMR, but in practice, are OHIM had erred in law, not in their interpretation
Jonathan Wyness is the senior partner
much harder to register because it is felt that of the evidence. The CJEU reminded Lindt that of MW Trade Marks Limited and a
consumers are less likely to consider shapes the decisions of national EU registrars were not Fellow of ITMA. He has worked as
of goods as an indication of the origin of the binding on OHIM and so evidence of use from in-house trademark attorney for an
product. Instead, they will rely on the brand only these three countries was not felt to be international luxury goods group for
names or logos applied to the packaging to evidence of acquired distinctiveness throughout over 10 years, and as a senior trademark
differentiate competing products. Indeed, this the EU. The original application was filed in attorney for a large international law
firm offering trademark services to
case highlights that because shapes are more 2004, and perhaps a new application will fare
some of the leading brand-owning
universally recognised than word marks (which better if Lindt have since that time established companies in the world. Jon is also an
only have a meaning in countries where that their product in more EU countries, to the level examiner and a lecturer in trademarks.
language is widespread), the burden on the of recognition that the author believes it enjoys
applicant to show acquired distinctiveness in the UK.
CIPA CONGRESS 2012
IP UNITED
GLOBAL HARMONISATION
THURDSAY 11 – FRIDAY 12 OCTOBER 2012
Business Social and Networking
• Competition Law and IP The President’s Dinner - Speech from
• Future of Patents and Patent Lord Justice Kitchin
Litigation in Europe Keynote speeches include:
• Linguistics & Claim Construction • John Alty, CEO, UK IPO
• Patent Infringement • Wim Van der Eijk, Vice President
• Patent Validity Appeals DG. 3, EPO
• Trade Marks – Impact of EU
Harmonisation
Open IP Meeting – IPAG Conference for IP
New for 2012 administrators and paralegals
Congress will be followed IPAG’s annual conference runs parallel with
on Friday afternoon by an Open Congress and delegates meet during lunch
Meeting for IP professionals to and refreshments
up
11 h to
discuss ‘The Profession: Training,
Ethics and Governance’.
our
CPD s
To Register:
E: congress@cipa.org.uk T: +44 (0)20 8432 4320 W: www.cipa.org.uk
124x185_advert.indd 1 29/06/2012 14:04
www.intellectualpropertymagazine.com July/August 2012 Intellectual Property magazine 65
