Ferrero 5 Fifa 0 -- but will there be a replay?

If you looked at the Board of Appeal decisions on the OHIM website, as the IPKat did just now, you will have noticed that there are no decisions dated between 19 June and 23 June 2008. This is slightly odd, because the Kat has in his possession a series of five extremely interesting decisions of the Board, all of which are dated 20 June 2008.

Right: Fifa's excellent figurative Community trade mark, which -- unlike the word marks listed below -- was not under threat in these proceedings

The decisions are not joined, though they are clearly similar: they are Cases R 1466/2005-1, R 1467/2005-1, R 1468/2005-1, R 1469/2005-1 and R 1470/2005-1. All are appeals brought by Ferrero oHG mbH against the refusal of the Cancellation Division to cancel marks belonging to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association -- better known as Fifa.

The five marks in dispute are not hugely current any more in terms of their commercial value, since they relate to an event which briefly obsessed a large proportion of sports fans. They are
* WORLD CUP 2006 (referring to the football world cup);
* GERMANY 2006 (the event taking place in Germany);
* WM 2006 (WM = Weltmeisterschaft, "World Cup" or World Championship" in German)
The grounds upon which the registrations were challenged was that the signs in question were descriptive and lacked distinctive character. The Cancellation Division presumably felt confident that this was not so, but the Board of Appeal, annulling all five of its decisions in rulings of 30-odd pages in length, thought otherwise.

The IPKat congratulates the Board of Appeal for having the courage (i) to refuse the request to convene a Grand Board to hear these cases, since they raised no issue of legal difficulty and (ii) to apply Community trade mark law as it stands, fairly and impartially, in the face of some pretty vigorous assertions from the Community trade mark proprietor.

Merpel says, what I find interesting is the wide range of goods and services for which Fifa sought protection of their marks. I wasn't expecting to find any of these on the list:
* Class 5 – feminine hygienic products; fungicides, herbicides; deodorants for non personal use.

* Class 8 – electric or non-electric razors, including razor blades; depilatory devices; tweezers; curling tongs; kitchen scissors.

* Class 10 - nursing bottles; condoms.

* Class 31 – Foodstuff for animals; fresh berries; fresh vegetables; flowers; litter for animals.

* Class 34 – Matches; lighters; cigarette cases, ashtrays, smoker's articles made of non-precious metal; cigarettes; tobacco.
Both Kats agree that the real importance of these decisions lies not in these marks but in the message that organisers of sports events in the future will be receiving. If GERMANY 2008 does not meet the criteria for valid registration, will LONDON 2012, for example, fare any better?
Ferrero 5 Fifa 0 -- but will there be a replay? Ferrero 5 Fifa 0 -- but will there be a replay? Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. This failure to publish BoA decisions might be due to the installation of a new upgrated version of their softwares, seems the new web site has some problems

  2. How does this compare to the recent EURO2008 decision?

  3. How come the BoA has been so slow to take a decision on this case?
    Wubbo, you should really hire fresh blood

  4. Probably the Board has not been slow but careful. You'd better be careful with FIFA and Ferrero.

  5. Yes, let's wait and read. Inter partes proceedings take longer, probably parties must receive the possibility to express themselves, communications might have been sent, etc.

  6. The decisions are now available on the OHIM homepage (

  7. I can't seem to track down the actual text of the decisions...can someone please steer me in the right direction?


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.