Source: http://blogip.elzaburu.es/2014/10/court-of-justice-rules-on-validity-of.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 06:16:21
Document Index: 1906016

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

ELZABURU, Intellectual Property: Court of Justice rules on the validity of the three-dimensional Tripp-Trapp trademark
Three noteworthy aspects of the CJEU's ruling
This is an important ruling that is to be welcomed because it uses sound judgment to clarify the legal parameters applying to the registration of three-dimensional marks.
The CJEU first assessed whether the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 3(1)(e) (the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves) refers only to a sign consisting exclusively of a shape that is indispensable to the function of the goods or whether it can also refer to a shape that features one or more substantial characteristics of the goods or the generic functions of the goods. The CJEU opted for the second interpretation of this provision. According to the CJEU, the first interpretation would leave the producer of the goods no leeway to make a personal essential contribution, nor would it allow the objective of the ground for refusal in question to be fully realized.
Second, the CJEU assessed whether the ground for refusal relating to the shape which gives substantial value to the goods may apply to a sign consisting exclusively of a product shape having several characteristics, each of which may give that product substantial value. The CJEU replied to this question in the affirmative, stating that this ground for refusal may not be limited solely to the shape of products having ornamental value only. Rather, it also extends to products which, in addition to an artistic value, have other characteristics that give them relevant value (for example, with regard to security, ease of use, quality, etc.). In this connection, the CJEU added that the relevant consumer’s perception of the sign is not a decisive element but an additional criterion for assessing the applicability of this ground for refusal.
Third, the CJEU stated that the grounds for refusal set out in Article 3(1)(e) are independent and may not be applied in combination.
Authors: Enrique Armijo Chávarri and Ilia Blanco
Posted by Elzaburu Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual on 10/02/2014 12:22:00 pm