Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:231
Date: 2001-09-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Signs of which a trade mark may consist;Actions before the Community Courts;Three-dimensional marks
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeals before the Community 
judicature — Actions for annulment of measures — Interest in bringing proceedings 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) 
II - 2793 
SUMMARY — CASE T-129/00 
2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Signs capable of constituting a trade mark — Shape — Condition — 
Distinctive character 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) 
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs devoid of any distinctive charac­
ter — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape and design of the product — 
Distinctive character — Criteria by reference to which such character assessed 
(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 — Signs devoid of any distinctive charac­
ter — Features of a three-dimensional mark suggesting certain of the product's 
qualities without being descriptive — Effect on the assessment of distinctive character 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) 
5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs devoid of any distinctive charac­
ter — Three-dimensional mark — Rectangular tablet with chamfered edges and 
slightly rounded corners, with speckles and a triangular inlay in the centre, for 
household goods 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) 
1. An action brought under Article 63 of 
Regulation No 40/94 on the Commu­
nity trade mark is not admissible unless 
the applicant has an interest in seeing 
the contested measure annulled. Such 
an interest exists only if annulment of 
the measure is of itself capable of 
having legal consequences. 
(see para. 12) 
2. It is clear from Article 4 of Regulation 
No 40/94 on the Community trade 
mark that a product's shape falls 
among the signs which may constitute 
a Community trade mark. However, 
the fact that a category of signs is, in 
general, capable of constituting a trade 
mark does not mean that signs belong­
ing to that category necessarily have 
distinctive character for the purposes of 
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 
in relation to a specific product or 
service. 
(see para. 47) 
II - 2794 
PROCTER & GAMBLE v OHIM (RECTANGULAR TABLET WITH INLAY) 
3. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 
on the Community trade mark does not 
distinguish between different categories 
of trade marks. The criteria for asses­
sing the distinctive character of three-
dimensional trade marks consisting of 
the shape of the product itself are 
therefore no different from those 
applicable to other categories of trade 
marks. 
Nevertheless, when those criteria are 
applied, account must be taken of the 
fact that the perception of the relevant 
section of the public is not necessarily 
the same in relation to a three-dimen­
sional mark consisting of the shape and 
design of the product itself as it is in 
relation to a word mark, a figurative 
mark or a three-dimensional mark not 
consisting of the shape of the product. 
Whilst the public is used to recognising 
the latter marks instantly as signs 
identifying the product, this is not 
necessarily so where the sign is indis­
tinguishable from the appearance of 
the product itself. 
(see paras 50-51) 
4. It does not follow from the fact that the 
features of a three-dimensional mark 
suggest certain of the product's quali­
ties without, however, being capable of 
being considered a descriptive indica­
tion in terms of Article 7(1)(c) of 
Regulation No 40/94 on the Commu­
nity trade mark that those features 
necessarily confer a distinctive charac­
ter on the mark. Where the target 
sector of the public sees the presence 
of those features as a suggestion that 
the product has certain qualities, and 
not as an indication of its origin, there 
is no distinctive character. 
(see para. 58) 
5. According to Article 7(1)(b) of Regula­
tion No 40/94 on the Community 
trade mark, 'trade marks which are 
devoid of any distinctive character' are 
not to be registered. As regards the 
application for registration for house­
hold goods of a three-dimensional 
trade mark in the form of a rectangular 
tablet with chamfered edges and 
slightly rounded corners and with 
speckles and a dark triangular depres­
sion in the centre, colour not being 
claimed, the tablet is devoid of any 
distinctive character. 
Given the overall impression created by 
the combination of the shape and 
II - 2795 
SUMMARY — CASE T-129/00 
design of the tablet, the mark applied 
for, which is among the obvious varia­
tions on the get-up of the product 
concerned, will not enable consumers, 
in the absence of any additional fea­
tures, to distinguish the products con­
cerned from those having a different 
trade origin when they come to select a 
product for purchase. 
(see paras 60, 63, 68) 
II - 2796