Decision on the inherent distinctiveness of an application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 EUTMR)

Alicante, 10/04/2018

Bomhard IP, S.L.

C/Bilbao, 1, 5º

E-03001 Alicante

ESPAÑA

Application No:	017278301
Your reference:	10609GC/mr
Trade mark:	KENTUCKY DERBY
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	Churchill Downs Incorporated 600 N. Hurstbourne Parkway Louisville Kentucky 40222 ESTADOS UNIDOS (DE AMÉRICA)

The Office raised an objection on 11/10/2017 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) 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.

At the request of the applicant the deadline for response to the Office’s objection was extended until 16/02/2018.

The applicant submitted its observations on 15/02/2018, which may be summarised as follows:

• The sign is inherently distinctive. It is unique, unusual and immediately eye catching. It will be capable of being associated with a single trade origin, the Applicant.

• The similar mark was accepted by Canada, Japan and USA.

• The Office has previously registered other similar marks.

Pursuant to Article 94 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.

General remarks

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).

Under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ 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).

The marks referred to in Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR are, in particular, those that do not enable the relevant public ‘to repeat the experience of a purchase, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition of the goods or services concerned’ (27/02/2002, T 79/00, Lite, EU:T:2002:42, § 26). This is the case for, inter alia, signs commonly used in connection with the marketing of the goods or services concerned (15/09/2005, T 320/03, Live richly, EU:T:2005:325, § 65).

Although the criteria for assessing distinctiveness are the same for the various categories of marks, it may become apparent, in applying those criteria, that the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same for each of those categories and that, therefore, it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for some categories of mark than for others (29/04/2004, C 456/01 P & C 457/01 P, Tabs, EU:C:2004:258, § 38).

Moreover, it is also settled case-law that the way in which the relevant public perceives a trade mark is influenced by its level of attention, which is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (05/03/2003, T 194/01, Soap device, EU:T:2003:53, § 42; and 03/12/2003, T 305/02, Bottle, EU:T:2003:328, § 34).

Applicant´s remarks

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 relevant public who are to look at it in relation to the goods or services for which registration is being sought, and form an opinion of what it connotes.

The application in question seeks registration for the sign ‘KENTUCKY DERBY. As already pointed out in the previous communication, ‘KENTUCKY DERBY’ is the name of a US annual horse race.

A trade mark must always be examined in relation to the goods and services for which registration is sought, in the present case, ‘sporting activities, wagering services and/or organization of sport competitions and/or races. Bearing in mind that “KENTUCKY DERBY” is a known annual horse race for three-year-olds held in Louisville, Kentucky, it can be assumed that, in the context of the services at issue, the subject mark will be perceived merely as an indication of subject matter, and will not therefore perform the function of indicating trade origin.

Furthermore, 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.)

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.

As regards the applicant’s argument that a number of similar registrations have been accepted by the EUIPO, according to settled case law, ‘decisions concerning registration of a sign as a European Union trade mark … are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion’. Accordingly, the registrability of a sign as a European Union trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of the EUTMR, as interpreted by the Union judicature, and not on the basis of previous Office practice (15/09/2005, C 37/03 P, BioID, EU:C:2005:547, § 47; and 09/10/2002, T 36/01, Glass pattern, EU:T:2002:245, § 35).

‘It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that observance of the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with observance of the principle of legality according to which no person may rely, in support of his claim, on unlawful acts committed in favour of another’ (27/02/2002, T 106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 67).

Consequently, the Office still maintains its position that the sign KENTUCKY DERBY among the relevant public simply will be seen as an indicator of the subject matter of the services in question.

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for EUTM No 17 278 301 is declared to be descriptive and non-distinctive pursuant to Article 7(1) (b), (c) in specify the relevant territory for the following services;

Class 41 Sporting and cultural activities; conducting horse races; wagering services; providing sports information; providing information about sporting activities; organization of sports competitions.

According to Article 66(2) EUTMR, you have a right to appeal against this decision which does not terminate the examination proceedings. According to Article 68 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 for appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to have been filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.

Once this decision has become final, the proceedings will be resumed for the examination of the subsidiary claim based upon Article 7(3) EUTMR and Article 2(2) EUTMIR.

Selin GÜNEL