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
General Court: Shape of a games box rejected as 3D trade mark

In Case T‑547/13, the General Court upheld the OHIM's decision rejecting the following 3D trade mark application by  Rosian Express SRL for Class 28: ‘Games, toys;' and allowing it on the register for 'gymnastic and sporting articles not found in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees’ and Class 35: ‘Advertising; business management; business administration; clerical services’.

Image not found

The Board of Appeal rightly found that the relevant public consisted of average, reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumers and that, having regard to the nature and the price of the goods at issue, the degree of knowledge of the relevant public could vary from average to high.. The goods at issue, having regard to their description, fall within the category of games and toys. They are intended for general consumption and not only for professionals or enthusiasts since anyone is likely, at some time or another, to acquire such goods either regularly or occasionally.

Having regard to that description, the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to find, that the mark applied for ‘does not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector’ and that ‘it is common for parlour games and toys (for example the toy version of the game rummy for children) to be packaged and sold in packaging made from different types of material including wooden boxes’.

Similarly, the way of unfolding and assembling the box the shape of which constitutes the mark in question, namely by a system of sliding racks allowing the game to be put away or to be assembled, does not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector. It is well-known that similar sliding systems exist to enable the goods at issue to be put away and to be assembled.

 Seen as a whole the different characteristics of the mark applied for, likewise do not enable the mark applied for to be considered as differing significantly from the norms and customs of the sector.

Within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the mark applied for is not distinctive allowing the relevant public to identify the goods at issue as originating from a specific undertaking and, therefore, to distinguish those goods from those coming from other undertakings. 

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 18.27
Tags: General court, toy, 3D trademark,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA4202
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