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.