Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, 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 — Word mark COMPETITION

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 12)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 13)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 14-17)

4. The word mark COMPETITION, registration of which is applied for in respect of ‘Motorised land vehicles and parts therefor’ in Class 12 of the Nice arrangement, ‘Model vehicles, model cars and toy cars’ in Class 28, ‘Retail and wholesale services in relation to motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and motor vehicle accessories’ in Class 35 and ‘Conversion, fix, maintenance services … of vehicles, motors and engines and all parts therefor’ in Class 37 is devoid of distinctive character pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark. The sign at issue, being composed entirely of a single word, commonly used in English and French, which clearly indicates a product or service that is intended for competition and that is therefore of excellent quality, is laudatory for the sake of advertising, the purpose being to highlight the positive qualities of the goods or services for the presentation of which it is used. The term will therefore immediately be perceived by the relevant public as a laudatory advertising message which indicates that the goods and services in question offer consumers an advantage, in terms of quality, by comparison with competing goods and services. Moreover, the word mark COMPETITION, even as a promotional term, is not sufficiently original or resonant to require at least some interpretation, thought or analysis on the part of the relevant public, as that public is led to associate the sign immediately with the goods and services in question.

Consequently, the sign does not permit the relevant public to identify the origin of the goods and services in question or distinguish them from those of other undertakings. Accordingly, it has no distinctive character.

(see paras 20, 23, 24, 36, 39)

5. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 41-45)