Log in


Now in its twelfth 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.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
Insulate For Life rejected

In its Judgment T-157/08, the General Court confirmed that INSULATE FOR LIFE is devoid of distinctive character in the meaning of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR.

The same CTM had been previously applied for by the same Applicant in 2005, for classes 6, 17 and 19, which had already been rejected in a definitive decision by the Boards of Appeal in 2006. In the case at hand, the Applicant reapplied for the identical sign covering the already rejected goods plus services in Class 37. So firstly, the Court had to pronounce itself on whether the new application required a new assessment. Since no new relevant fact nor any further information had been put forward by the applicant that could have altered or undermined the assessment in the first decision, the Board of Appeal was therefore fully entitled to limit itself in essence to referring to the operative parts of the 2006 decision.

Secondly, as regards Class 37, the General Court held that the relevant public which has a command of the English language - representing a very large part of Europe - will understand the word sign INSULATE FOR LIFE, immediately and without further analytical effort, as a reference to very long-lasting services related to the use of a particularly durable insulation material, and not as an indication of the commercial origin of those services. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions in response to a written question put by the Court, even as a laudatory or promotional slogan, that word sign is not sufficiently original or resonant to require at least some interpretation, thought or analysis on the part of the relevant public and this sign should be left capable of being marketed by any undertaking active in the construction and insulation sector.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 09.14
Tags: CTM, not distinctive, General Court,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2247
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment

MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.

The Class 46 Archive








+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox