Swatch prevailed over Apple in a trademark dispute

sydney-363244_960_720A recent trademark battle between Apple and Swatch has ended with success for the Swiss company.

The dispute at hand concerned a trademark application for ‘one more thing’ filed by Swatch.

Apple filed an opposition arguing that this phrase was well-known by consumers in relation to its products because it had been used in their launching.

The Australian Patent Office disagreed stating that according to the evidence Apple had used this phrase only once. This wasn’t enough to constitute real trade usage for the purpose of the trademark opposition procedure.

In addition, Swatch emphasized that the idea for this trademark was inspired by the  “film noir” genre and in particular by the character of Colombo detective who regularly used this phrase in his investigations.

Source: WIPR.

Advertisements

The battle for ICELAND continues

pexels-photo-414101Iceland Foods will appeal the EUIPO’s decision for cancelation of its trademark ICELAND registered in 2014 for classes 7, 11, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35. This trademark is used for supermarkets in The UK.

The procedure was initiated by Promote Island, a government organization from Iceland based on Article 52(1) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR:

The following shall not be registered:

  • (a) signs which do not conform to the requirements of Article 4;
  • (b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
  • (g) trade marks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service;

The EUIPO agreed with Promote Island and canceled the trademark. The arguments for this are:

It follows from all of the above that ‘ICELAND’ may serve, from the point of view of the public concerned, to designate an essential and desired characteristic of the goods and services.

Therefore, the mark conveys obvious and direct information regarding the geographical origin of the goods and services in question, and in some cases, the subject matter of the goods as well.

Considering all of the above, it follows that the link between the word ‘ICELAND’ and the contested goods and services is sufficiently close for the sign to fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down by Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR and Article 7(2) EUTMR and that this was also the situation at the time of filing of the contested EUTM, namely, 19/04/2002.

The EUIPO found that Iceland Food failed to prove acquired secondary distinctiveness in the EU.

The Icelandic foreign minister Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson expressed his satisfaction with this decision.

“It is contrary to common sense for a foreign company to be able to appropriate the name of a sovereign state as was being done in this case”, the minister said.

Iceland’s foreign ministry added that consumers were likely to associate the mark with “the country of Iceland for all goods and services the registration is claimed for”.

Source: WIPR.

Formula E crashed in a case before the European Court of Justice

race-track-flag-2035566_960_720.jpgThe European Court has ruled in case C‑282/18 – The Green Effort Limited v Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA). Even though the case is simple, it clearly shows why every trademark owner has to stick to the deadlines given by the EUIPO.

The Case concerns the following:

The Green Effort acquired rights over the word mark Formula E, the application for registration of which was filed on 17 November 2010.

The goods and services in respect of which registration was sought are:

–        Class 25: ‘Clothing’;

–        Class 38: ‘Broadcasting by radio, television and satellite’;

–        Class 41: ‘Organization of sporting events’.

The EU trademark application was published on 3 December 2010 and the trade mark applied for was registered on 14 March 2011.

On 15 March 2016, Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA) filed an application for revocation of the contested mark for all the goods and services, pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, on the ground that it had not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years.

On 21 March 2016, the Cancellation Division of EUIPO invited The Green Effort to submit, by 21 June 2016, proof of genuine use of the contested mark. Since that proof was submitted on 22 June 2016, in disregard of the time limit prescribed, it was not taken into account.

On 27 July 2016, The Green Effort filed an application for restitutio in integrum with the Cancellation Division of EUIPO in order have its rights to submit that proof re-established.

By decision of 8 September 2016, the Cancellation Division rejected the application and revoked the contested mark in its entirety.

On 5 October 2016, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Cancellation Division.

By the contested decision, the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO (‘the Board of Appeal’) dismissed the appeal.

In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal considered that neither the proprietor of the contested mark nor its representative showed that they had actually taken the utmost care to observe the time limit prescribed for submitting the documents proving genuine use of the contested mark. It took the view that, while there is evidence in the file of repeated attempts to send electronic communications and fax communications from The Green Effort to EUIPO, with respect to Spanish local time all communications were received on 22 June 2016, that is to say after the time limit prescribed had expired, since the explanations provided in that regard could not be regarded as ‘exceptional’.

Therefore, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for restitutio in integrum, and, with regard to the application for revocation of the contested mark, it considered that, in the absence of any proof of genuine use in the European Union during the relevant period or of any indications of proper reasons for non-use, the rights acquired by The Green Effort had to be revoked in their entirety and deemed not to have had any effect as from 15 March 2016.

The Court dismissed the appeal by The Green Effort Limited considering that the EUIPO’s position on the matter is correct. The arguments are:

As set out in Article 4(4) of that decision, without prejudice to accurately establishing the date of notification, notification will be deemed to have taken place on the fifth calendar day following the day on which EUIPO placed the document in the user’s inbox.

That interpretation meets the requirements stemming from the principle of legal certainty by preventing a decision of the Board of Appeal from being called into question indefinitely, given that, if no access to the document concerned is requested after it has been placed in the recipient’s inbox, the notification is deemed to have taken place on the fifth calendar day after being so placed.

Therefore, since it is common ground that the representative of The Green Effort requested access to the contested decision on 19 September 2017, that he downloaded it and became aware of it on that same day, the General Court did not err in law in deciding that the time limit for bringing an action against the contested decision expired on 29 November 2017, that decision having been notified on 19 September 2017. Therefore, the ground of appeal alleging that the starting point of the time limit prescribed for bringing an action was wrongly determined must be rejected as unfounded.

Apple lost a battle against Swatch in Singapore

pexels-photo-982660Apple failed to stop a trademark application for ‘Tick different’ applied by the Swiss company Swatch in Singapore for class 9 and 14.

The opposition was based on an earlier mark  ‘Think different’ owned by Apple for class 9. The US company argued that the Swatch mark is confusingly similar and filed in a bad-faith.

The Patent Office, however, wasn’t impressed and dismissed the opposition. According to the Office, both signs are not similar due to the differences in their first words which convey different meanings. On top of that, some of the goods weren’t similar too.

Source: WIPR.

The fashion brand MANGO lost a trademark dispute in the UK

MANGO

Andrew McWhirter (Brodies LLP ) published an article for Lexology regarding an opposition lost by the fashion brand Mango.

The case concerns an application for a UK trademark YANGO for identical and similar goods to those under Mango brand.

Against this application, an opposition was filed based on a series of earlier Mango trademarks. On top of that, a reputation for Mango mark was stated before the Patent Office.

The UKIPO ruled that there are no grounds for consumer confusion. The arguments for this conclusion were that although there are some visual and phonetic similarities between the signs in general, there are not similar enough because of the lack of conceptual similarity ( Mango is a fruit, whereas Yango has no meaning) and the fact that the beginning of the marks are different – M and Y.

Most likely this decision will be appealed. Nevertheless, however, it is indicative of how difficult the protection of such marks could be.

Red Bull prevailed in a UK barbecue dispute

pexels-photo-555775Red Bull won an opposition against the following UK trademark application in Class 11 – barbecue smokers and grills, pellet smokers and grills.

Untitled

The opposition was based on an earlier word mark RED BULL and the following figurative mark, both in Class11:

Untitled 2

According to the the UKIPO, there is a phonetic similarity between the sign which shares identical first part Red Bull. The presence of the words BBQ Grills in the later mark is not sufficient to differentiate them due to its lack of distinctiveness.

From a conceptual point of view, both marks are highly similar wheres from a visual side they are not because of the different graphical representations.

The earlier marks are within their 5 year period for use, so there is no need for a genuine use to be proved although Red Bull doesn’t use its trademarks for such goods.

In its conclusion, the Patent Office summarized that the signs at hand are similar to the extent that they can lead consumers to think that the goods are produced by the same or an economically linked undertaking.

Source: WIPR.

Whisky and a German-Scottish dispute over geographical indications

drink-428319_960_720.jpgThe European court ruled in case C‑44/17 Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz, which concerns the following:

The Scotch Whisky Association is an organisation constituted under Scottish law. Its objectives include protecting the trade in Scottish whisky both in Scotland and abroad.

Mr Klotz markets, via a website, a whisky under the designation ‘Glen Buchenbach’, which is produced by the Waldhorn distillery in Berglen, located in the Buchenbach valley in Swabia (Germany).

The label on the whisky bottles in question includes, in addition to a stylised depiction of a hunting horn (Waldhorn in German), the following information: ‘Waldhornbrennerei’ (Waldhorn distillery), ‘Glen Buchenbach’, ‘Swabian Single Malt Whisky’, ‘500 ml’, ‘40% vol’, ‘Deutsches Erzeugnis’ (German product), ‘Hergestellt in den Berglen’ (produced in the Berglen).

The Scotch Whisky Association brought an action before the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg, Germany) seeking an order that Mr Klotz, inter alia, cease to market that whisky, which is not Scotch whisky, under the designation ‘Glen Buchenbach’, on the ground that use of that designation infringes, in particular, Article 16(a) to (c) of Regulation No 110/2008, which protects the geographical indications registered in Annex III to that regulation, which include ‘Scotch Whisky’.

According to the Scotch Whisky Association, those provisions ensure that a geographical indication registered for a spirit drink is protected not only against the use of such an indication but also against any reference that suggests the geographical origin of that indication. It argues that because the designation ‘Glen’ is very widely used in Scotland instead of the word ‘valley’ and, in particular, as an element of the trade mark in the names of Scottish whiskies, it evokes in the relevant public an association with Scotland and Scotch Whisky despite the fact that other information is included on the label, which specifies that the product at issue is of German origin. Mr Klotz contends that the action should be dismissed.

The Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) states that whether the claim is to succeed depends on the interpretation to be given to Article 16(a) to (c) of Regulation No 110/2008. It has therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)  Does “indirect commercial use” of a registered geographical indication of a spirit drink in accordance with Article 16(a) of [Regulation No 110/2008] require that the registered geographical indication be used in identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area?

If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any “indirect commercial use”, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded then also play a role, or can that context not counteract indirect commercial use of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?

(2) Does an “evocation” of a registered geographical indication in accordance with Article 16(b) of [Regulation No 110/2008] require that there be a phonetic and/or visual similarity between the registered geographical indication and the disputed element, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area?

If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any “evocation”, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded also play a role, or can that context not counteract any unlawful evocation of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?

(3) When determining whether there is any “other false or misleading indication” in accordance with Article 16(c) of [Regulation No 110/2008], does the context in which the disputed element is embedded play a role, or can that context not counteract any misleading indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?’

The Court decision:

1.  Article 16(a) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that there is ‘indirect commercial use’ of a registered geographical indication, the disputed element must be used in a form that is either identical to that indication or phonetically and/or visually similar to it. Accordingly, it is not sufficient that that element is liable to evoke in the relevant public some kind of association with the indication concerned or the geographical area relating thereto.

2. Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that there is an ‘evocation’ of a registered geographical indication, the referring court is required to determine whether, when the average European consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect is confronted with the disputed designation, the image triggered directly in his mind is that of the product whose geographical indication is protected. In making that determination, the referring court, in the absence of (i) any phonetic and/or visual similarity between the disputed designation and the protected geographical indication and (ii) any partial incorporation of that indication in that designation, must take account of the conceptual proximity, if any, between the designation and the indication.

Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that there is an ‘evocation’ of a registered geographical indication, account is not to be taken either of the context surrounding the disputed element, or, in particular, of the fact that that element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product concerned.

3. Article 16(c) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that there is a ‘false or misleading indication’, as prohibited by that provision, account is not be taken of the context in which the disputed element is used.

Image: jarmoluk / 1443 images, Pixabay.