Case T-402/02. August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case T-402/02. August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)"

Dylan Riley
5 years ago
Views:

1 Case T-402/02 August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark Figurative mark representing the form of a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) Subject-matter of the application Absolute ground for refusal Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Distinctive character acquired through use Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Right to be heard Article 73(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 10 November 2004 II Summary of the Judgment 1. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Signs capable of constituting a mark Graphic representation of a mark, particularly a colour mark Requirements to be fulfilled (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 4; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 3(2)) II

2 SUMMARY CASE T-402/02 2. Community trade mark Registration procedure Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application Requirement to act expressly and unconditionally Restriction suggested in the alternative Not to be taken into account (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 44(1)) 3. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Absolute grounds for refusal Marks devoid of any distinctive character Figurative mark representing the form of a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) 4. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Absolute grounds for refusal Marks devoid of any distinctive character Assessment by the Office Mark applied for in respect of general consumer goods Reference to the usual practice in the trade covered Whether permissible (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) 5. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Absolute grounds for refusal Marks devoid of any distinctive character Figurative mark representing the shape of a sweet wrapper Distinctive character Criteria for assessment Cost of producing the shape Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) 6. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Absolute grounds for refusal Marks devoid of any distinctive character, descriptive marks and customary marks Exception Acquisition of distinctive character through use Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, AH. 7(3)) 7. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Absolute grounds for refusal Lack of distinctive character Exception Acquisition through use Scope Mark devoid of any distinctive character in the whole of the Community Acquisition through use likewise in the whole of the Community (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) II

3 STORCK v OHIM (SHAPE OF A SWEET WRAPPER) 8. Community trade mark Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark Absolute grounds for refusal Marks devoid of any distinctive character Exception Acquisition through use Examination by the Office Restriction to the facts pleaded by the applicant for the mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(3), and 74(1)) 1. The graphic representation of a Community trade mark within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 3(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 must enable the sign to be represented visually, particularly by means of images, lines or characters, so that it can be precisely identified. In order to fulfil its function, the graphic representation must be clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. adding a colour designation from an internationally recognised identification code. (see paras 25-26) Accordingly, a mere sample of a colour does not in itself satisfy the requirements referred to, since it may be altered over time. On the other hand, a sample of a colour, combined with a description in words of that colour, may constitute a graphic representation, provided that the description is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, and objective. If that combination does not satisfy the conditions laid down in order for it to constitute a graphic representation because, inter alia, it lacks precision or durability, that deficiency may, depending on the facts, be remedied by 2. Although, under Article 44(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the applicant may at any time withdraw his trade mark application or restrict the list of goods or services contained therein and therefore the power to restrict the list of goods or services is vested solely in the applicant who may, at any time, apply to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for that purpose, the withdrawal, in whole or part, of an application for a Community trade mark or the restriction of the list of goods or services it contains must be made expressly and unconditionally. II

4 SUMMARY CASE T-402/02 Account cannot therefore be taken of a step by which the applicant suggests, in the appeal against the rejection of his trade mark application, restriction of the list of goods covered by the application to just a part of them only in the alternative, that is, only if the Board of Appeal were minded to reject that application in respect of all the goods covered by it. 3. The figurative sign representing the form of a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) in light brown (caramel) serving as packaging for sweets, in respect of which registration is sought for 'sweets' in Class 30 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 for the goods concerned, since the twisted wrapper is not markedly different from wrappers for the goods in question which are commonly used in trade, thus coming naturally to mind as a typical wrapper shape for those goods, and therefore the characteristics of the combination of shape and colour are not likely to be remembered by the relevant public as indicators of commercial origin. (see paras 57, 62) (see paras 33-34) 4. In the assessment as to the lack of inherent distinctive character of a Community mark applied for in relation to general consumer goods within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) may refer to the usual practice in trade for the goods referred to, without specific examples of that practice being given. The Office may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods, which are likely to be known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods. (see para. 58) 5. The cost of producing the wrapper shape does not constitute one of the relevant criteria for assessing the dis- II

5 STORCK v OHIM (SHAPE OF A SWEET WRAPPER) tinctive character of a Community figurative mark representing the shape of a wrapper within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. A shape devoid of distinctive character cannot acquire such character on account of the cost of its production. Secondly, in order to have the registration of a mark accepted under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, the distinctive character acquired in consequence of the use of that mark must be demonstrated in the part of the European Union where it was devoid of any such character under Article 7(1 )(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation. (see para. 59) 6. The acquisition of distinctiveness through use of the Community trade mark, referred to by Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 requires, first, that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public identifies the products or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the mark. However, the circumstances in which the condition as to the acquisition of distinctiveness through use may be regarded as satisfied cannot be shown to exist solely by reference to general, abstract data, such as specific percentages. Thirdly, in assessing, in a particular case, whether a mark has become distinctive through use, account must be taken of factors such as, inter alia, the market share held by the mark, how intensive, geographically widespread and longstanding use of the mark has been, the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark, the proportion of the relevant class of persons who, because of the mark, identify goods as originating from a particular undertaking and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade associations. Fourthly, the distinctiveness of a mark, including distinctiveness acquired through use, must also be assessed in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for and in the light of the presumed perception of an average consumer of the category of goods or services in question, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. (see paras 77-80) II

6 SUMMARY CASE T-402/02 7. A Community trade mark in respect of which there is an absolute ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 throughout the Community must have become distinctive through use likewise throughout the Community in order to be registrable under Article 7(3) of that regulation. (see para. 86) Although, as regards Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, there is no rule stipulating that the examination by the Office (that is, by the examiner or the Board of Appeal, as the case may be) must be limited to the facts pleaded by the parties, unlike the rule stated at the end of Article 74(1) of the regulation with regard to the relative grounds for refusal, if the applicant for a mark does not plead distinctiveness acquired through use, the Office is in practical terms unable to take account of the fact that the mark claimed may have become distinctive. 8. In the assessment of the distinctive character of a Community trade mark acquired through use within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is not bound to examine facts showing that the mark claimed has acquired such character unless the applicant has pleaded them. (see para. 96) II

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.

Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 28 June 2004 (1) (Appeal Regulation (EC) No 40/94