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

In Joined Cases T‑102/11, T‑369/12, T‑370/12 and T‑371/12, American Express Marketing & Development Corp. applied for the following word signs IPZONE, EUROPE IPZONE, IPZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IPZONE for Class 42 services ‘hosting an on-line portal for disclosing, selling, buying, licensing and general transactions for intellectual property’.

The examiners, as confirmed by the 2nd Board of Appeal, refused the registrations.

For the English-speaking professionals in the European Union, the marks applied for, taken as a whole, would be understood by the relevant public as meaning ‘a place dedicated to intellectual property’ with respect to the mark IPZONE, and ‘an area devoted to intellectual property in Europe’ with respect to the marks EUROPE IPZONE, IPZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IPZONE. Thus the marks applied for are descriptive of the services in question and cannot be registered in accordance with Article7(1)(c) of CTMR.

Concerning the application of Article7(1)(b) of CTMR, in the decision contested in Case T‑102/11, the mark IPZONE is not understood as an indication of the origin of the services at issue and for that reason, it is devoid of distinctive character. In the decisions contested in Cases T‑369/12, T‑370/12 and T‑371/12, as the marks EUROPE IPZONE, IPZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IPZONE are descriptive of the services claimed, for that reason they are devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article7(1)(b).

In its appeal before the General Court, AmEx contested the definition of the relevant public, claiming the hosting of an on-line portal was not carried out by professionals in the field of intellectual property, but rather by IT experts and, second, that the services provided by that portal were also addressed to the general public. The GC rejected that argument holding that it cannot validly be claimed that the services at issue are not principally intended for professionals in the field of IP, in so far as these are very specific services which refer expressly to the field of IP.

Second, the applicant claimed that the element ‘ip’ of the signs at issue may evoke different meanings on the part of the relevant public. However, given the definition of the relevant public, the public regularly uses the abbreviation IP to refer to the words ‘intellectual property’.

Finally, the fact that the mark IP ZONE has been registered in the US was set aside by the GC which recalled the principle of the autonomous CTM regime. The actions were dismissed.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 10.06
Tags: General Court, absolute grounds, europe, IP , zone, American express,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3641
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

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE


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