The General Court dismissed the appeals in cases T-329/09 and T-282/09, holding the trademarks were devoid of distinctive character because they represent an ordinary geometric form, a single colour without any specific nuance and the convex sides will be barely perceived by the relevant public.
Furthermore, there is no particular grahic or word element so the sign to be protected is limited to the colour per se (whatever was the designation in the application: light green as figurative trademark and brown as a colour trademark), which protection as a figurative trademark is limited to exceptional circumstances: where there is a limited number of goods or services or the relevant market is very specific, which was not the case here (the trademarks being registered for a general list of goods and services in classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44).
Moreover, the colour green will be perceived as a simple reference to the respect for the environment and the public will associate a link between the goods in question (natural cosmetics, perfumes..) with nature. It is not unusual that the colour brown is used for a large range of goods and services. Regarding the accomodation, hotel, holiday homes and day nurseries services, the consumer will pay more attention since they are more expensive. However the public is not used to presume the origin of goods and services based on a single colour and simple geometric form, at most these colours will be perceived as a decorative element for marketing them.
N.B: after the case of the missing pictures on the Curia website noticed here by the Ipkat, the link for Case T-329/09 was also not functionning properly for two days- maybe due to the abundance of judgments pre-holiday..