Log in

CLASS 46


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
FRIDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2009
Finland: European Criteria

In its decision of 17th December 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of Finland held that the slogan YRITYKSILLE, JOTKA VAATIVAT ENEMMÄN (translation: ‘for companies, who demand more’) did not lack distinctiveness.


What is really interesting in the decision is the strong reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on distinctive character. First, the court refers to ECJ’s decision C-218/01 Henkel KGaA, which reminded us of the need for European criteria on interpreting trade mark laws, i.e. that the requirements for gaining trade mark protection should, as a rule, be the same.


The court also referred to ECJ’s decision C-64/02 P ‘DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ where it was held that in assessing distinctiveness the same (not stricter) criteria apply also in relation to slogans as apply in relation to other kinds of trade marks.


Here, the National Board of Patents and Registration (NBPR) had stated that the reason, it held the slogan as lacking distinctive character, was that in its opinion the slogan was not original or inventive enough so that it would create a connection to a particular trader and an association to this trader’s goods and services. The court held this to be a stricter test than what applies in relation to other kinds of trade marks, and accordingly, a test that could not be applied.


Referring once more to ECJ’s decision C-218/01 Henkel KGaA, the court pointed out that, in its assessment of distinctive character, a national Office can take into consideration the fact that a trade mark has already been registered in another Member State. Here the fact that localized versions of the same slogan had already been registered in Sweden and Denmark could therefore be taken into consideration. Even more interestingly, at the end of the judgment, the court returns to this point and states that the NBPR not only should apply the European criteria, but should also pay attention to any earlier decisions made by other Member States’ offices on a given mark that is now applied to be registered for the same goods and services in Finland.

Posted by: Mikael Kolehmainen @ 07.04
Tags: distinctiveness, finland, slogans,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA969
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






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

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

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox