RAW is not descriptive for clothing

In 2010 RB Europe started a cancelation action against RAW at OHIM. The reasoning for this being that RAW in its opinion is not distinctive for clothing. RAW refers to the raw and natural state of the material, material which has not been altered. In relation to the goods (clothing) it is immediately obvious what it is about, namely the structure of the tissues. Because this is an indication of one of the characteristics of the product, it is descriptive.

This case was very important to G-Star since several pending court cases are based on the RAW brand.

The Cancellation Division is clear in her statement: RAW is a great brand. The Raw brand will be understood by the public as "uncooked, raw and unfinished. That cannot be seen as a description of the characteristics of clothing. The claim was rejected, so G-Star can continue to use its RAW brand.

Latest news
Hakuna matata and colonialism
Trademark BIG MAC not used ???
Abcor recommended as Dutch experts in the field of Intellectual Property Law
Scent marks & non traditional trademarks
Fees for Filing and Renewal of Trademarks in the Benelux about to change!


MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE. Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark. Infringement or not?
Follow Abcor