Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / A HAIRY DECISION FROM OHIM

A HAIRY DECISION FROM OHIM


The OHIM Second Board of Appeal obviously isn’t expert in hair removal.

(Right) No cats were harmed in the writing of this blog

Reckitt & Colman applied to register BLADELESS for various beauty products, including depilatory products and spatulas. The examiner refused the application on lack of distinctiveness and descriptiveness grounds and an appeal ensued.

The Board allowed the appeal, saying that the term was quite ‘senseless’ in relation to the applied for goods, and that it could only be descriptive if two terms were satisfied: (1) that the goods normally featured or consisted of a blade and (2) the goods lacked said blade but still functioned, or even functioned better, without it. This was not the case in relation to any of the applied-for goods.

The IPKat reckons that the Board was obviously unaware of Reckitt’s bladeless depilatory system (heavily advertised in London) which utilises a razor-shaped device without a blade and is marketed as an alternative to razors (details here). Perhaps this is a good reason to have a woman on every appeal board?

The Kat also notes that the Second Board persisted with its flawed approach of considering whether there was a need to keep the mark free for other traders to use under Art.7(1)(b) (distinctiveness) instead of Art.7(1)(c) (descriptiveness).
A HAIRY DECISION FROM OHIM A HAIRY DECISION FROM OHIM Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousMonday, 9 October 2006 at 12:22:00 GMT+1

    Something is 'senseless' round here, but it certainly isn't the term "Bladeless" !

    Such a term "may" (the word used in the Directive)surely serve in trade to describe a chracteristic of the product. Who says it has to be a 'technical advantage', or 'change' from the norm to fall foul of the 3(1)(c).

    Nil points for the second Board of Appeal.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.