Non-distinctive logo’s - EUIPO's new guideline

In 2014 the EUIPO presented a new guideline regarding the admissibility of logo´s as a registered trademark. A little stripe under the word or a square as background will not convert a logo in a distinctive and valid trademark. The idea is that consumers will not recognize the sign as a trademark, because the logo is too descriptive. As a consequence, many logo´s are being refused by the authorities. In the meantime, the first appeals against these refusals have been judged by the court, that (unfortunately) confirms the new policy.

For example, the silhouette of a bodybuilder has been refused for food supplements, clothing and a web shop for these products. According to the court, the consumer directly links the stylized image of the bodybuilder in this pose with the claimed goods and services. This image may therefore not be monopolized.

The same faith was suffered by a logo for solar panels. The customers, being specialist, would directly recognize the drawing as a section of a solar panel. The fact that these panels might have very different shapes is not relevant, according to the court that refuses the trademark. A company that wishes to claim a descriptive word should therefore add a figurative element that does not refer to the distinguished product.

trademark-registration

Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?