Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  WEDNESDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
Switzerland: restrictive practice regarding shape marks also applies to packaging

 

The German Deutsche See GmbH, a manufacturer of fish products, sought to register the above depicted three dimensional trade mark for fish in class 29 and gastronomy services in class 43. Both the Swiss IPO, the Federal Administrative Court and now the Federal Supreme Court refused the registration for lack of distinctiveness.

The Supreme Court briefly summarizes its practice regarding three dimensional trade marks and notes that consumers do not generally perceive the shape of a product as an indication of source, unless such shape is very unusual ("auffällige Eigenart") and distinct from the ordinary shapes of the goods in question.

It then turns to the question whether this practice also applies to packaging, and basically comes to the conclusion that this is the case. While consumers may perceive the overall appearance of packaging (shape, colour, graphical and literal elements) as an indication of source, this does not indicate that they will perceive the shape as such, devoid of any further signs, as an indication of origin. The Supreme Court notes that in some product segments, where consumers have been taught to perceive the shape of packaging as an indication of origin, that may be different (as an example, perfume bottles are mentioned). However, consumers will not perceive the packaging of fish products primarily as an indication of source.

Under the general "highly unusual" standard (I just invented that term), the packaging fails. It is aesthetically pleasing (I do hope they have registered it as a design), but insufficiently different from common packaging designs.

The Supreme Court does not address why the application was also refused for restaurant services - it would be highly unusual to offer these in the depicted packaging, no?

Link to German summary of decision of 23 May 2011 (with link to full text).

Posted by: Mark Schweizer @ 13.22 
Tags: Switzerland, absolute grounds of refusal, shape marks, 3d marks,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3257 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
- 2011
     + December (24)
     + November (41)
     + October (42)
     - September (51)
OHIM Boards of Appeal: pharmaceutical products and cosmetics
PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD lacks distinctiveness in Luxembourg
General Court: META v METAFORM
Che Guevara's portrait: not a valid CTM
SCOMBER MIX Community trademark : General Court says Go Fish
Meet the Judges, MARQUES-style
Let's watch the flowers grow... or maybe not
Agatha Ruiz de la Prada: appeal rejected in Luxembourg (en v.o.)
MARQUES is on the move
Switzerland: acquiescence not a factor in opposition proceedings
Join MARQUES's current discussions on LinkedIn
From Sweden to Singapore
EU, Georgia, agree GI pact
New trade mark law in Sweden
General Court: When in doubt, do file an appeal
“ONEL” spells “TOMTEC” in German
October ETMR now out
Baveno: post-scriptum
Deutsche Bahn v OHIM - DSB (IC4)
TM assignment, CTM & the Poteen: General Court and the Craic of EU law interpreting
Portugal - Sound Mark with electronic audio file: First Electronic Filling
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 10
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 9
Reality Check: Market reality - MARQUES conference Part 8
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 7
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 6
MARQUES on LinkedIn
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 5
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 4
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 3
Reality Check: MARQUES conference Part 2
Reality Check: MARQUES conference opens in Baveno
Switzerland: JumboLine not distinctive for windows
General Court: can't get total care twice
It's time for some more non-minor amendments again
VOGUE famous in Serbia, IP Office rules
MARQUES supports ICC Conference on new GTLDs
Metro v Metronia -Round two
The visual impact of TUCs packaging trade marks: a salty biscuit for Apéro
General Court: BHG lacks distinctive character
Switzerland: restrictive practice regarding shape marks also applies to packaging
Poland: Sto Panoramicznych
Snapshot
New Nice: does anyone know?
German Federal Patent Court: SCORPIONS
La vie en rouge - Part 2
La vie en rouge - Part 1
Trade Mark of the Day
California Court refuses to hear Levi Strauss EU infringement claim
French trademark law: kids game
Poland: Prince Polo's problems
     + August (27)
     + July (39)
     + June (37)
     + May (47)
     + April (35)
     + March (48)
     + February (32)
     + January (43)
+ 2010
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors