e’s application to register a crocodile device, together with the words ‘The Dental Practice’, but the reasoning of the decision demands a closer look. The first thing to note is that this was an Art.5(2)(b) opposition, i.e. Lacoste was claiming similarity of goods. It seems that they have a registration for ‘medical services’ in Class 44, which the IPKat finds a little disturbing. Ever the dapper feline, he usually tries not to confuse his dentist with his tailor.
The Appointed Person, Professor Ruth Annand, was asked by Lacoste to find that the words ‘The Dental Practice’ were wholly descriptive, and therefore should have been ignored in comparing the marks, leaving a crocodile for crocodile comparison.
Professor Annand found that this was not the correct approach. One has to distinguish between descriptiveness and similarity of marks. In assessing similarity, the marks must be compared overall. Distinctive elements of a mark will not make it more or less similar to other marks, although the distinctiveness of the mark as a whole may expand its scope of protection.
It was true that the words in the applied for mark were descriptive. Ordinarily, but not inevitably, descriptive elements will not be dominant. However, the Hearing Officer was entitled to find in this case that they were dominant. This, together with the differenc
The IPKat wonders if the Appointed Person has gone a bit far here. Granted, the ECJ has told us to look at marks as a whole, but it has also told us that we can take their distinctive and dominant elements into account. It must be a very rare case where a descriptive term will also be dominant. Having said that, she was exercising what is essentially a reviewing function, and so once she found that in some, probably rare, cases the descriptive element could dominate, it was hard for her to find that the Hearing Officer’s decision was clearly wrong. What’s missing though from the decision is the underlying issue – can a company really claim a monopoly in all depictions of a particular animal?
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
This is somehow the right (just) result but is a good illustration of how dangerous it can be to slavishly follow 'legal principle', especially as handed down to us by the ECJ and CFI.
ReplyDeleteHad the Matratzen and Medion principles of "independently distinctive" shared elements been strictly followed, LOC would, I think, have been inevitable.
The Lacoste emblem is NOT a crocodile but an alligator.
ReplyDeleteIf the Dental Practice's mark was a crocodile and the Lacoste emblem is an alligator, where can the risk of confusion arise?
ReplyDeleteAh yes, but this is a multifactorial assessment based on an average consumer whose recollection is sadly challenged.
ReplyDeleteLacoste should, on paper, have won this. They have a strong mark, the services were identical, the reptiles are pretty similar. Aided by a couple of formulaic ECJ cases (Matratzen and Medion), this should have been a stroll in the proverbial park.
But, like the third round of the FA Cup here in the UK, the underdog came out on top. Hooray !!
This is clearly a trademark of selection. There is synergy between the two parts of the mark, namely "Dental Practice" and the teeth of the crocodile, leading to an unobvious and hence registrable result. Or am I possibly confusing trademark with patent practice?
ReplyDelete