“TAKE FIVE” – the EUIPO Board of Appeal maintains that the slogan is not sufficiently distinctive for registration
From time to time, this Kat receives queries from clients in relation to the registrability of slogans as trade marks. The Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in its recent decision refused a trade mark application for the slogan “TAKE FIVE” in Class 32 (Case R 664/2022-1).
Recap: Are slogans treated differently than other types of marks? Well, NO… but…
According
to the Collins
English Dictionary, a slogan is “a short phrase that is easy to remember”,
and is “used in advertisements… who want
people to remember what they are saying or selling”. A trade mark consisting of a slogan therefore
usually conveys a promotional message in connection with the applied-for goods
and services.
It
is widely recognized that the assessment of the distinctive character of slogans
is not subject to stricter criteria than the assessment of other types of trade
marks. This was specifically mentioned
in the EUIPO’s comprehensive report titled “The
Distinctive Character of Slogans”
(dated October 2021) issued in March 2022 (the
Report). The difficulty therefore
comes down to the ability of the slogan to serve as a badge of origin because
it often consists of “origin neutral” phrases.
This is usually the main reason why many applications for slogan marks
are rejected, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the
EU Trade Marks Regulation (EUTMR).
As mentioned in the Report, the average consumer is not used to making
assumptions about the commercial origin of products on the basis of promotional
slogans. Importantly, the level of attention of the consumer is generally low
when it comes to promotional slogans.
Quite
helpfully, the Report identified various non-exhaustive factors laid down in
case law which may serve to establish distinctiveness of a slogan:-
- The mark has a number of meanings;
- The mark constitutes a play on words;
- The mark introduces elements of conceptual intrigue or surprise, so that it may be perceived as imaginative, surprising or unexpected;
- The mark has some particular originality or resonance, and/or triggers in the minds of the relevant public a cognitive process or requires an interpretative effort;
- The mark has unusual syntactic structures and/or linguistic and stylistic device such as alliterations, metaphors, rhymes.
Examples
of slogan marks which have been found sufficiently distinctive include “Wet
dust can’t fly (T-133/13),
“Love to Lounge” (T-305/16)
and “It’s like milk but made for humans” (EU:T:2021:21,
reported by the IPKat here)
"It's like milk but made for Kats" |
EUTM application for TAKE FIVE
Studio
Beverage Group, Inc. filed an EU trade mark application for TAKE FIVE (no.
018495362) covering the following goods in
class 32: “Mineral waters; flavored
mineral water; Carbonated mineral water; Non-alcoholic drinks”.
After
issuing an objection to the application and considering the applicant’s
submissions, the examiner refused the application entirely by decision of 22 February
2022, in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) EUTMR.
In
her decision, the examiner was of the opinion that the relevant public would
perceive the mark as a promotional laudatory slogan, the function of which is
to communicate a motivational statement for buying five units of the goods in
question. Further, the examiner
concluded that the relevant public would not tend to see in the sign any
indication of commercial origin. The
sign could originate from any provider or be attributed to any provider, for as
long as the consumer is unable to create a link to a specific supplier in
consequence of extensive use. The sign would
therefore be perceived by the relevant public primarily as a promotional
message, based on its inherent meaning, rather than as a trade mark.
Studio
Beverage Group, Inc. filed an appeal requesting that the decision be entirely
set aside.
The Board of Appeal decision
The
Board of Appeal issued a decision on 1 September 2022 dismissing the
appeal. The Board held that “MARK FIVE”
lacks the requisite distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b)
EUTMR. Echoing the view of the examiner,
the Board considered the following:-
The Relevant Public
- The relevant public are end consumers of non-alcoholic drinks and mineral
waters, and the sign has to be assessed by reference to the English-speaking
public because it consists of English words.
The level of attention of the public is relatively low when it comes to
promotional indications.
Distinctive Character –
The Board held that the assertion of the applicant that the sign is distinctive
as it does not describe the goods claimed is unfounded:-
- The public will understand that the expression is an invitation to potential customers to take or buy products in a quantity of five. The invitation conveyed could also refer to a variety of five different types or flavours sold in one pack. Such invitations to take or buy are commonplace.
- The present sign is a direct, obvious and also widely used advertising statement with “five” being used in the sense of a quantity specification. The public is familiar with receiving such form of advertising messages.
As
a result, the word combination “TAKE FIVE” cannot be regarded as capable of
serving as an indication of the commercial origin of the applied-for goods. The relevant public will see in the word
sequence exclusively a general laudatory advertising statement and an appeal to
potential customers to buy.
Thoughts
If
one were to look at the sign “TAKE FIVE” as a slogan or promotional statement,
the message conveyed by this expression is very direct and simple. There is no play on words nor is there any
unusual syntactic structure. As such,
the decision of the Board of Appeal makes sense from this perspective.
This
being said, this Kat cannot stop wondering if the examiner and the Board jumped
into thinking that the sign “TAKE FIVE” is a slogan. Let’s take a closer look at the “TAKE FIVE”
hard seltzer marketed by Studio Beverage Group in the image below.
It
seems quite obvious that “TAKE FIVE” is the brand name of such products and not
simply a promotional statement. In fact,
the slogans or promotional statements appear to be “LIVE IN THE MOMENT” and
“Uniquely Refreshing”, which per a cursory check on the EUIPO database, are not
applied for.
If
TAKE FIVE is not considered as a slogan, would the decision be different? Well, the answer seems to be a YES….
Studio
Beverage Group, Inc. has an EUTM for “TAKE FIVE HARD SELTZER” (no.
018335911) in class 33 for “hard seitzer” successfully registered on
14 April 2021, just a little less than 2 months prior to the filing of the
application for “TAKE FIVE”.
As
“HARD SEITZER” is descriptive of the applied-for goods, the distinctive element
would likely be “TAKE FIVE”. Applying
the reasoning adopted by the examiner and the Board in “TAKE FIVE”, shouldn’t
“TAKE FIVE HARD SELTZER” be refused as well?
It could equally be said that the public will see the mark as a general
laudatory advertising statement and an appeal to potential customers to take or
buy five seltzers. Arguably, while
descriptive, the addition of the words “HARD SELTZER” does make it clearer that
“TAKE FIVE” is a brand and not a promotional slogan. In any event, it is rather interesting to see
that Studio Beverage Group, Inc. did not submit arguments along these lines
during the prosecution stage and the appeal, but instead made submissions
(among others) arguing that the sign is unusual, original and a play of words,
which as the Board puts it - “somehow unusual”.
No comments:
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