Bottle as a trademark – an European court decision

The European court ruled in Case T-411/14, The Coca-Cola Company v OHIM. The Case concerns an attempt of Coca-cola to register the following European trademark for metallic, glass and plastic bottles:

New Picture

OHIM refused to register this mark based on a lack of distinctiveness. OHIM dismissed Coca-cola’s assertion that this bottle is natural evolution of the classic bottle which is registered and famous trademark.

The decision is appealed.

According to the Court the applied bottle doesn’t contain any distinctive forms or groves based on which consumers can perceive the bottle as a mark and trade origin. The presented bottle is similar to other bottles offered on the market by many companies.

The attempt of the company to prove acquired distinctiveness has failed.

Source: WIPR.




WIPO notification regarding goods and services in case of EU designation

wipo-logoWIPO informs about some necessary actions which trademark holders of international trademarks with designation of EU should bear in mind in the light of 28(8) European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR). After the European court decision in the IP Translator case, the goods and services in every Community trademark ( including those registered before 22.06.2012) should be specified clearly. Because of this OHIM gives a deadline up to 24.09.2016 every trademark holder to put the relevant elucidation in their list of goods and services.

In the light of the above, WIPO gives some instruction what is the administrative procedure for that purpose. More information here.

Adidas won a lawsuit in US

A US court granted Adidas’s request for a preliminary injunction in lawsuit against the US company Skechers which was accused of infringement of distinctive design and trademark rights belong to the German company.


According to the court Skechers takes advantages form the well-know three lines pattern typical for most of the Adidas products. Moreover, some of the other Skechers’s sneakers are quite similar to that offered by Adidas.


The court accepted that the Adidas’s designs are valid, distinctive and original because of which meet the law requirements for protection.

More information here.

Source: WIPR.

Change in the Turkish Patent Office’s practice

tpeMarques Class 46 reports about a change in the Turkish Patent Office’s practice regarding publication of trademark applications. Until now these applications have been published once a mouth in the Patent Office’s bulletin. According to the change trademark applications will be published twice a mouth.

More information here.

Proof of trademark rights before OHIM – important clarification.

attest_authorize_award-512The European Court ruled in Case T‑135/14, Kicktipp GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Società Italiana Calzature Srl.

A German company filed application for an EU trademark Kicktipp for cloths etc.

Against this mark was filed an opposition from an Italian company based on an earlier mark Kickers for cloths too.

OHIM upheld the opposition, the decision about which was appealed. One of the argument for this was the fact that the Italian company submitted only renew application for its trademark without registration certificate.

According the Court this is not sufficient to prove existing rights. Rule 19 of EU Regulation 2868/95 (which covers opposition filings) requires providing “both the registration certificate and the renewal certificate”.

Moreover, according to the Court both marks in general are not similar to the extent to create consumer confusion.

Source: WIPR.

Brief IP news

 briefs_1131. Five lessons regarding trademarks from this year’s Super Bowl. For more information here.

2. Theft of trade secrets versus copyright infringements watch out for the differences in the limitations. For more information here.

3. Less than 10% of patents in Bulgaria are owned by local companies. For more information here.

Information from Intellectual Property Center at the UNWE. More information can be found here  

Hype Park is out of trademark protection in Switzerland

TY707398_393highThe Swiss Federal Administrative Court upheld the refusal of the Swiss Patent Office to register trademark HYDE PARK for Class 12 – cars. This decision is a part from a rich and quite tight practice of the Office regarding marks designating geographical origin in some way.

According to the court HYDE PARK is not deceptive because it’s not typical cars to be produced in places like parks. However, HYDE PARK is one of the most famous English symbols together with Big Ben, Trafalgar Square and so on. In that regard, the consumers would perceive the cars as originating from England which is well-known as a car producer for many years.

To sum up, the registration of trademarks in Switzerland, which indicate some geographical source requires a deep analysis for potential trademark refuses.

More information here.

Source: Marques Class 46.