General Court rules that shape of Guerlain's Rouge G lipstick case can be registered as a trade mark

 Can the shape of a lipstick case function as an indicator of commercial origin? The answer is yes when such case is the iconic and immediately recognizable (at least to lipstick lovers!) one of Rouge G de Guerlain:

Today, also the General Court did agree in its judgment in T-488/20 Guerlain [currently only available in French].

The judgment (correctly) reverses the earlier, contrary decision of the EUIPO First Board of Appeal (2292/2019-1).

Background

In 2018, Guerlain applied to register the 3D sign represented above (left-hand side) for “lipsticks” in Class 3.

The EUIPO examiner rejected the application considering that the sign would lack distinctive character, in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. The subsidiary claim of the applicant under Article 7(3) EUTMR (acquired distinctiveness) could be examined once the decision became final.

Guerlain unsuccessfully appealed. 

The EUIPO Board considered that the shape applied for would not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector, as it has become (routinely) required for trade mark applications relating to less conventional signs (eg, patterns, shapes, position marks). According to the Board, the applicant’s sign was a mere variation on the shapes of lipstick cases normally available on the market.

The IPKat Team's favourite shades
A further appeal to the General Court followed.

The decision

The Court noted at the outset that the concept of distinctiveness is different from that of novelty or originality: the fact that the specialist press regarded the applicant’s sign as "revolutionary" is not relevant for assessing distinctiveness. What (case) law requires is that a 3D sign consisting of the shape of a product diverges significantly from the norms or customs of the concerned sector.

Insofar as the attractiveness of the shape is concerned, this may be taken into account among other things, in that it can serve to prove that such shape does indeed diverge significantly from the norms or customs of the concerned sector because it produces an objective and unusual visual effect in the eyes of the relevant public.

The General Court then reviewed the part of the (contradictory, according to the Court) Board's decision relating to the “norms and customs of the sector”: sure, said the Court, cylindrical shapes might be the most common ones, but they are not the only ones. It follows that the norms and customs of the sector cannot be reduced to what is statistically most widespread, but must instead include all the shapes that the consumer is accustomed to see on the market. All this said, the fact that a certain sector is characterized by the presence of different shapes does not mean that a new possible shape should be regarded as a mere variation thereof.

Taking into account the images considered by the Board (above), the Court concluded that the applicant’s shape is unusual for a lipstick in that it reminds one of a boat hull or a baby carriage. As such, it differs from any other shape on the market. The relevant public with a level of attention ranging from medium to high will be surprised by Guerlain’s easily memorized shape and will perceive it as significantly deviating from the norms and customs of the lipstick sector. As such, the Board was incorrect in denying that such shape would possess distinctive character.

Comment

If we consider the fashion sector in the past 2-3 years alone, things have been rather gloomy for trade mark applications relating to less conventional signs. For instance: the Court of Justice of the European Union has held Birkenstock's surface pattern mark devoid of distinctiveness (C-26/17 P); LVMH has not yet been able to secure registration of its Damier Azur pattern (though things may look up now; T-105/19); the shape of Moon Boots may be protected by copyright (in Italy) but it has so far been unsuccessful on the trade mark registration front (1093/2019-1); and the Buffalo position mark has not been considered registrable yet (2167/2019-1).

Today's decision represents a sensible outcome and brings about some welcome and refreshing news to trade mark applicants seeking to register shape or less conventional marks. Will distinctiveness findings be more en vogue also for these trade mark applications from now on?

[Originally published on The IPKat on 14 July 2021]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more