Refusal of application for a Community trade mark

(Article 7 CTMR and Rule 11(3) CTMIR)

Alicante, 30/10/2015

BOULT WADE TENNANT

Verulam Gardens

70 Gray's Inn Road

London WC1X 8BT

REINO UNIDO

Application No:	014337422
Your reference:	FKH/AA/T142026EM00
Trade mark:	CAREREVIEW
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	CareReview, Inc. P.O. Box 120457, Arlington Texas 76012 ESTADOS UNIDOS (DE AMÉRICA)

The Office raised an objection on 09/07/2015, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and 7(2) CTMR, because it was found that this trade mark is descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character, for the reasons set out in the attached letter.

On 08/09/20015 the applicant submitted its observations, which may be summarised as follows:

• The applicant limited their services as follows:

Class 35	Cost management accounting services in the field of pharmaceuticals.
Class 36	Advisory and consultancy services provided to the insurance industry and insurance support industry, namely, insurance advisory services, advisory services relating to insurance contracts, advisory services relating to insurance claims; insurance information and consultancy services; insurance; insurance research; medical and health insurance; insurance claims administration; insurance agency services.
Class 44	Provision of medical services; provision of medical advice, medical reports, medical examinations, medical analysis, and medical consultations; medical rehabilitation services; consultation services relating to all the aforesaid.

• While the applicant agrees with the examiners definition of the words CARE and REVIEW, they argue that as none of the remaining services relate to either the provision of protection or the review of medical care, the subject mark, ‘CAREREVIEW’ is not descriptive of services at issue and is therefore distinctive.

Pursuant to Article 75 CTMR, it is up to the Office to take a decision based on reasons or evidence on which the applicant has had an opportunity to present its comments.

After giving due consideration to the applicant’s arguments, the Office has decided to maintain the objection.

Under Article 7(1)(c) CTMR, ‘trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service’ are not to be registered.

It is settled case-law that each of the grounds for refusal to register listed in Article 7(1) CTMR is independent and requires separate examination. Moreover, it is appropriate to interpret those grounds for refusal in the light of the general interest which underlies each of them. The general interest to be taken into consideration must reflect different considerations according to the ground for refusal in question (see judgment of 16/09/2004, C-329/02 P, 'SAT.1', paragraph 25).

The signs and indications referred to in Article 7(1)(c) CTMR are those which may serve in normal usage from a consumer's point of view to designate, either directly or by reference to one of their essential characteristics, goods or services such as those in respect of which registration is sought (see judgment of 26/11/2003, T-222/02, 'ROBOTUNITS', paragraph 34).

In its submissions the applicant has argued that as none of the remaining contested services relate to either the provision of protection or the review of medical care, the subject mark, ‘CAREREVIEW’ is not descriptive of services at issue and is therefore distinctive.

The Office has noted the applicant’s submissions. However, it must be advised that, when assessing a mark, the Office must consider it, not in its strictest grammatical sense, but how it would represent itself to the public at large, who are to look at it in relation to the services for which registration is being sought, and form an opinion of what it connotes.

The Office is of the opinion that when taken as a whole, the meaning of the term ‘CAREREVIEW’ will be clear to any English-speaking consumer who will immediately and without any difficulty establish a direct and specific link between the mark and the services for which registration is being sought, namely that they relate to the estimation and/or assessment of the required level of medical care and related support to be provided. It is, therefore, the Office’s view that the term ‘CAREREVIEW’ is readily intelligible when taken in conjunction with the services applied for, and viewed by the relevant consumer, who will see the phrase ‘CAREREVIEW’ merely as a descriptor of the kind and/or intended purpose of services being provided rather than an indication of trade origin.

Due to the reasons set out above, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and 7(2)

CTMR, the application for the Community Trade Mark ‘CAREREVIEW’ is hereby rejected in its entirety.

Under Article 59 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation you have a right to appeal against this decision. Under Article 60 of the Regulation notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months from the date of receipt of this notification and within four months from the same date a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 800 has been paid.

Andrew CARTER