In November 2007 the Finnish Trade Mark Office allowed registration of the figurative trade mark GIN SUOMI 1952 (registration number 242150) on the application of Solera Finland in class 33 for alcohol drinks (except beers). In May 2009 the office rejected the opposition Oy Hartwall Ab had made against the registration.

The office based its decision on the fact that the trade mark was as a whole distinctive, even though the separate parts of the mark were not distinctive and were therefore outside the scope of protection.  The opponent had also stated that the mark was misleading as the number 1952 in the mark referred to the Olympics that were held in 1952 in Finland and for which the long drink mix, with which the owner of the trade mark registration had no connection, was created.  He office said that the number might refer to a number of things and that it was not clear that it would refer to the fact that the owner of the trade mark had something to do with the Olympics or with a drink created for the Olympics. The Board of Appeal of the office then dismissed the appeal.

The decisions of the Finnish Trade Mark Office and its Board of Appeal were annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court, the matter being remitted to the Office in order for the registration to be annulled.

In the court’s view the trade mark consisted of the words GIN and SUOMI and of the number 1952 with white letters with black frames on a square blue background. In the context of this mark the word GIN was a generic term and the word SUOMI apparently referred to the geographical origin of the goods and was not – as part of a trade mark registered in Finland – able to distinguish the goods of the trade mark owner from those of another. Also the number 1952 cannot be seen a distinctive part of the trade mark given that the labels of alcohol drinks often entail year numbers and that consumers would view the number 1952 as referring to the year 1952.

Further, as the figurative and colour elements of the trade mark are fairly simple and the font ordinary, the mark was not seen as distinctive for the drink gin or drinks entailing gin. Since the mark was not distinctive, it was not necessary to evaluate if it could be misleading -- except to the extent to state that the mark GIN SUOMI 1952 would mislead the consumers if registered for other drinks than gin.  

This case is particularly interesting in Finland as it was previously possible to make a relatively simple mark distinctive by adding a colour element to it. Following this decision, marks now need to have other distinctive elements as well.

This item has been kindly prepared for Class 46 by Tiina Komppa (Roschier, Finland)