NEWS

Invalidity of an EU trademark – Relevant public with regard to a language which is not an official language of the EU

General Court of the EU – decision of 26 July 2023, T-315/22

 Contents

Descriptive character of a trademark

A trademark must be distinctive in order to fulfill its function as an indication of origin. This is not the case if a trademark is a common term for a product/service. Then the trademark has a descriptive character. It therefore does not fulfill its function and should not be granted trademark protection (absolute grounds for refusal). If such a trademark is already registered, an invalidity action can be submitted before the EUIPO in the case of an EUTM. That was the case here against the word mark ”Sütat“ for “dairy products” in class 29, which was applied for in 2006. The EUIPO rejected the invalidity action.

Relevant public

Whether a trademark is descriptive for the goods/services offered must be assessed according to the understanding that the relevant public. A EUTM can also be declared invalid where a ground for refusal exists in only one part of the EU i.e., where a relevant part of the relevant public considers the trademark to be descriptive. The Board of Appeal decided that this trademark is descriptive and therefore not distinctive in the eyes of the relevant Turkish-speaking public in the EU.

The turkish-speaking public

Even though Turkish is not an official language of the EU, according to the General Court, it is understood and spoken by a relevant part of consumers in the EU. This public understands ”süt“ and ”tat“ in the meaning of the flavour of milk. Thus, from the point of view of the relevant public, the trademark is descriptive, so that the General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal.

To the point

In the case of the absolute ground “the descriptive character of a trademark“, it is sufficient that a not insignificant part of the relevant public considers the trademark to be descriptive. In this case, even if the Turkish language is not an official language of the EU, it is understood and spoken by a not insignificant proportion of consumers in the EU. It is therefore possible to base the assessment on the Turkish-speaking public.

more News

Copyright

TikTok publishes films without authorisation – no release from liability according to the Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG)

Delaying tactics in the negotiations with the copyright owner do not comply with the licence obligation under Section 4 UrhDaG (Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers).
Trademark Law

There is a likelihood of association between the figurative mark “Greenlyst” and the word mark “LYST”

The sign “Lyst” was copied identically in the trademark “Greenlyst”. This is not automatically sufficient to confirm a likelihood of confusion. In the present case “Lyst” could suceed against “Greenlyst”.
Trademark Law

The Independent characteristic position of the Opposition Mark “COCO” in the challenged trademark “HiCoco”

CHANEL partially prevails – The Federal Patent Court in Germany (BPatG) rules that “HiCoco” cannot be claimed for perfume in Class 3.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Phone +49 89 90 42 27 51-0
Fax +49 89 90 42 27 51-9

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin

Fachanwältin für
gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin

Fachanwältin für
gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München

Tel. +49 89 90 42 27 51-0
Fax +49 89 90 42 27 51-9