Two from the CFI

The IPKat brings details of two of today's CFI decisions.


This phrase was applied for as a CTM for various beverages, but was rejected by OHIM for lack of distinctiveness and descriptiveness. It appears to mean 'pure from the source' (thought the CFI does not seem to feel it overly necessary to provide a complete translation). The CFI agreed with OHIM that the phrase was descriptive, and therefore felt it unnecessary to consider distinctiveness. According to the CFI:

  • The slogan was gramatically correct and was not an unusual combination of words in the German language.
  • Contrary to the applicant's contention, there was a need for other traders to use the phrase. This could be seen that there were already traders who used at least one of the main words which made up the phrase in their slogans. In any event, there does not need to be a need to keep the mark free for it to be classed as descriptive if there is a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought.
  • The phrase was, in the context, unequivocal. Even if it had been equivocal, this would not have helped the applicant since at least one of its meanings was descriptive.
The IPKat says that this case shows that the CTM project is quite a tricky one. The CFI never gives a clear translation of the phrase. Even if it did, the IPKat doubts whether most Community members would be able to analyse the nuances of the phrase to decide if the average German consumer would view it as a normal way of desiganting the applied-for goods.


This one's a bit of a wash-out. The IPKat was looking forward to a nice Art.8(5) dilution case (IPKat pedantry point: is it possible to dilute water?). Instead, the case was decided against OHIM on an issue concerning the correct timing of translations.
Two from the CFI Two from the CFI Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. CFI is riduculous to turn ECJ's Arcol Capol judgment into the contrary. The parties will not find it very amuzing when the CFI sends the case back to the BoA who will probably still exercise its discretion as before. Second, the judgment only relates to the French trade marks. What about Germany? Even if the further translation was accepted, it still is not likely that the Board will come to a different result for France than for Germany.


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:

Powered by Blogger.