tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3045006463325094325..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: General Court confirms that body-builder silhouette cannot be registered as a trade mark for nutritional supplementsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1473768313737412532016-10-13T09:46:27.118+01:002016-10-13T09:46:27.118+01:00Anonymous should have done some research - see htt...Anonymous should have done some research - see https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00003012520 - same mark, for same classes of goods and services.kgymer @ pagehargrave.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21155707259560597032016-10-12T21:48:32.737+01:002016-10-12T21:48:32.737+01:00Is the practice of the UK IPO any better in this s...Is the practice of the UK IPO any better in this sense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-665902903305152502016-10-12T09:09:52.098+01:002016-10-12T09:09:52.098+01:00This is an extraordinarily bad and sweeping decisi...This is an extraordinarily bad and sweeping decision, which surely grossly overextends the scope of application of Article 7(1)(c). A search for existing registrations of silhouettes of individual people (e.g. using Vienna Classifications 02.01.008, 02.01.16) will reveal HUNDREDS of such registrations, many of which, like the body builder image in this case, are image marks alone with figures readily recognisable for their association with sporting or other activities relevant to the businesses of their proprietors. The ill-considered GC decision potentially - and unnecessarily and inappropriately in my view - calls into question the validity of those marks, almost none of which have been registered on grounds of acquired distinctiveness (do that search too). In the case of silhouettes of sports players, for example, the evidence clearly demonstrates that OHIM/EUIPO Examiners have been overwhelmingly consistent (correctly in my view) in accepting that such silhouettes ARE registrable and may be registered for goods and services relating to the relevant sport.<br />The reason for this, surely, is that, contrary to the GC's view, such silhouettes do NOT directly designate andn are not directly descriptive of the character of the specified goods and services. Rather, they are merely ALLUSIVE adn, while they may certainly invoke a conceptual connection with the relevant sport, such images are NOT equivalent to mere verbal use of the descriptive name of the sport concerned. That is indeed because images of sports players (and by analogy images of body builders) can be almost infinitely variable, and humans are very good at recognising and distinguishing such images. A silhouette may recognisably illustrate a player of a particular sport, for example, but other images may readily do the same. So the use of one silhouette as a trade mark does not prevent use of other player images for the same purpose.<br />The descriptiveness argument made by the GC hardly bears scrutiny. A bodybuilder may be a potential user of nutritional supplements, but his image does not describe protein powders; likewise, the bodybuilder as shown seems quite possibly to have been presented in silhouette to preserve modesty, as he doesn't appear to be wearing any clothing or footwear, so how on earth can this image be descriptive of such goods? Nor is the image recognisably holding up clothing or packets of supplements, so where is the descriptive reference to the specified services?<br />This decision is so bad it makes Brexit look a good idea.kgymer@pagehargrave.co.uknoreply@blogger.com