Here's another selection of recent Community trade mark decisions from the Court of First Instance of the European Communities:

Case T-184/07 Avon Products, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, 26 November 2008. Avon applied to register the word sign ANEW ALTERNATIVE for ‘soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions’ in Class 3. The examiner and the Board of Appeal refused registration on the basis that the mark would be perceived by the relevant consumer as meaning 'a new alternative', a combination of ordinary terms which made up an advertising message relating to the goods concerned, particularly given the phonetic identity of the two expressions. Avon's appeal was dismissed, the mark being devoid of distinctive character.


Case T-100/06 Rajani v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Artoz Papier AG, 26 November 2008. Rajani applied to register the word mark ATOZ for various services in Classes 35 and 41. Artoz opposed, alleging a likelihood of confusion with its earlier word mark ARTOZ, an international registration in respect of similar services covering Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the Benelux. Rajani requested proof of use of the international registration. Artoz Papier did not adduce any proof but stated that the international registration had been admitted to protection in Germany on 11 February 1999. The Opposition Division upheld the opposition and the Board of Appeal dismissed Rajani's appeal: a request for proof of use could be accepted only if, at the time of publication of the trade mark application, the earlier international trade mark was registered for not less than five years. In this case, the date on which the five-year period began to run was the date of the actual completion of the registration procedure, and that an international registration did not become final until, at the earliest, the expiry of the period specified in Article 5(2) of the Madrid Agreement. The Court of First Instance dismissed Rajani's appeal. It held that, since neither the CTM Regulation nor the Madrid Agreement specified the date on which the five-year time-limit began to run in the case of an international registration having effect in a member state, it was a matter for the national law of the member state concerned. If, in Germany, an applicant for a trade mark sought proof of use of an earlier international registration in respect of which the German Patent and Trade Marks Office first made a declaration under Article 5 of the Madrid Agreement, but to which it later granted protection, the date of receipt by WIPO of the final notification of the granting of protection constituted the starting point for the calculation of the five-year time limit. Here, since the Board of Appeal based its decision on an earlier international registration having effect in Germany, reference had to be made to German trade mark law both for the date on which the international registration first took effect in Germany and for the starting point for the five-year time limit. The Board of Appeal was right to hold that the starting point for the five-year time limit ran from the date on which registration was completed and that that time limit had not expired at the date of publication of the application for the ATOZ mark.


Case T‑435/07 New Look Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, 26 November 2008. New Look applied to register the words NEW LOOK for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 35. The examiner refused the application in its entirety and the Second Board of Appeal upheld her decision on the grounds that NEW LOOK was devoid of any distinctive character and that the evidence filed by New Look was not sufficient to show that the sign had acquired distinctive character through use. The Court has dismissed New Look's further appeal.