OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT



L123


Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 and Article 42(2) EUTMR)]



Alicante, 05/10/2017


J A KEMP

14 South Square

Gray's Inn

London WC1R 5JJ

REINO UNIDO


Application No:

016607707

Your reference:

TM404438EM-JAF/JXM

Trade mark:

QUENCH

Mark type:

Word mark

Applicant:

Refined Technologies, Inc.

P. O. Box 132196

The Woodlands Texas 77393

ESTADOS UNIDOS (DE AMÉRICA)




The Office raised an objection on 09/06/2017 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR and Article 7(2) EUTMR because it found that the trade mark applied for is descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character, for the reasons set out in the attached letter.



The applicant submitted its observations on 08/08/2017, which may be summarised as follows:


  1. The applicant provides definitions of the element of the sign.


  1. Other national Offices have accepted similar marks.



Pursuant to Article 75 EUTMR, 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.



The applicant provides definitions of the element of the sign.


Under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, ‘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) EUTMR is independent and requires separate examination. Moreover, it is appropriate to interpret those grounds for refusal in the light of the general interest underlying each of them. The general interest to be taken into consideration must reflect different considerations according to the ground for refusal in question (16/09/2004, C‑329/02 P, SAT/2, EU:C:2004:532, § 25).


By prohibiting the registration as European Union trade marks of the signs and indications to which it refers, Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR


pursues an aim which is in the public interest, namely that descriptive signs or indications relating to the characteristics of goods or services in respect of which registration is sought may be freely used by all. That provision accordingly prevents such signs and indications from being reserved to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as trade marks.


(23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 31).


The signs and indications referred to in Article 7(1)(c) [EUTMR] are those which may serve in normal usage from the point of view of the target public to designate, either directly or by reference to one of their essential characteristics, the goods or service in respect of which registration is sought’ (26/11/2003, T‑222/02, Robotunits, EU:T:2003:315, § 34).


It is … irrelevant whether the characteristics of the goods or services which may be the subject of the description are commercially essential or merely ancillary. The wording of [Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR] does not draw any distinction by reference to the characteristics which may be designated by the signs or indications of which the mark consists. In fact, in the light of the public interest underlying the provision, any undertaking must be able freely to use such signs and indications to describe any characteristic whatsoever of its own goods, irrespective of how significant the characteristic may be commercially.


(12/02/2004, C‑363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 102).


For a trade mark to be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR,


it is not necessary that the signs and indications composing the mark that are referred to in that Article actually be in use at the time of the application for registration in a way that is descriptive of goods or services such as those in relation to which the application is filed, or of characteristics of those goods or services. It is sufficient, as the wording of that provision itself indicates, that such signs and indications could be used for such purposes. A sign must therefore be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.


(23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 32, emphasis added.)



In this case the sign communicates that the characteristics of the goods are those of suppressing or reducing something, and as indicated by the applicant are used as a cleaning agent.



Other national Offices have accepted similar marks.


As regards the national decisions referred to by the applicant, according to case-law:


the European Union trade mark regime is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it; it is self-sufficient and applies independently of any national system … Consequently, the registrability of a sign as a European Union trade mark must be assessed by reference only to the relevant Union rules. Accordingly, the Office and, if appropriate, the Union judicature are not bound by a decision given in a Member State, or indeed a third country, that the sign in question is registrable as a national mark. That is so even if such a decision was adopted under national legislation harmonised with Directive 89/104 or in a country belonging to the linguistic area in which the word sign in question originated.


(27/02/2002, T‑106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 47).




For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for European Union trade mark No 16 607 707 QUENCH is hereby rejected for all the goods claimed.



According to Article 59 EUTMR, you have a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.




Valentín ALONSO MORENO

Avenida de Europa, 4 • E - 03008 • Alicante, Spain

Tel. +34 965139100 • www.euipo.europa.eu

Latest News

  • FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMS TTAB DECISION ON REFUSAL
    May 28, 2021

    For the purpose of packaging of finished coils of cable and wire, Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc. (“Reelex”) filed for the registration of its box designs under International Class 9 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

  • THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISMISSES NIKE’S APPEAL OVER INJUNCTION
    May 27, 2021

    Fleet Feet Inc, through franchises, company-owned retail stores, and online stores, sells running and fitness merchandise, and has 182 stores, including franchises, nationwide in the US.

  • UNO & UNA | DECISION 2661950
    May 22, 2021

    Marks And Spencer Plc, Waterside House, 35 North Wharf Road, London W2 1NW, United Kingdom, (opponent), represented by Boult Wade Tennant, Verulam Gardens, 70 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8BT, United Kingdom (professional representative)