Accueil / Distinctiveness

PARTAGER

Blind Test

On May 16, 2008, tthe Paris Court of Appeal considered the marks BLIND TEST as distinctive in respect of “discs, games, phonographic records”. For the judge, the proofs submitted were not sufficient to consistently establish that this expression was commonly used in the French language at the date of filing. The appreciation of the distinctiveness…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

When is it for?

On January 15, 2008, a French First Instance Court validited 12 national marks “C’est pour Janvier” (Predicted for January), “C’est pour Février” (Predicted for February), “C’est pour Mars” (Predicted for March), etc for products of classes 14, 24 and 25.

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Not so SIIMPEL !

On January 18, 2008, the Board of Appeal refused to register a CTM for SIIMPEL for “electronic and optical communication and imaging systems and components” in class 9, for non distinctiveness, stating that SIIMPEL was just a minor modification of the Dutch word “simpel”, meaning “simple”.

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

TEXTO lacks distinctiveness

On January 29, 2008, the Paris Court of First Instance cancelled the trademark TEXTO for non distinctiveness. This mark was held by SFR, one of the leaders of cellular phone services in France, and covered “written message services by radio-telephone”. SFR was suing the owner of the marks ONE TEXTO, ONE TEXTO PETITES ANNONCES and…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Bang & Olufsen loudspeaker

On October 10, 2007, the European Court of First Instance ruled the Bang & Olufsen loudspeaker was distinctive as a three dimensional mark. The Court considered the unusual shape, the striking design quality and the ease for the public to remember the said shape, which significantly departed from the customs of the market. Registration of…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

« 2 » for Guerlain

GUERLAIN successfully went through a French trademark Office examination with the number “2” filed as a trademark and represented with a kind of map effect. Furthermore, the mark was registered in March 2007.  This mark enlightens the differences between French and Community policies and the trademarks strategy relating thereto. The OHIM would have certainly refused…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Orangette product shape

On June 8, 2007, the Paris Court of First Instance considered this mark as distinctive for « cocoa, chocolate, chocolate products ». For the judge, this shape was neither necessary nor in relation with the substantial quality, taste or consistency of the products.   In fact, considering its specific size, composition and loop, this shape…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

From Tarzan’s scream to Tarzan’s cry

Three sound trademarks have been filed for Tarzan’s scream before the OHIM. The first one adopting the graphical representation of a sonogram was rejected on September 27, 2007 since it was not considered by the OHIM to be clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. The second application containing a music score has…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

CELL TECH

 CELLTECH On April 19, 2007, the Court of Justice of the European Communities confirmed that CELLTECH could mature into registration in classes 5, 10 and 42. When rejecting that mark, the OHIM had not provided evidence of descriptiveness, for example, by referring to scientific literature. Such proof was required as the existence and nature of…

Lire la suite