Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 and Article 42(2) EUTMR)

Alicante, 25/07/2018

ISERN PATENTES Y MARCAS, S.L.

Avenida Diagonal, 463 bis, 2° piso

E-08036 Barcelona

ESPAÑA

Application No:	017606013
Your reference:	OT64095
Trade mark:	Simply the right card
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do - REPÚBLICA DE COREA (LA)

The Office raised an objection on 24/01/2018 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) EUTMR because it found that the trade mark applied for is devoid of any distinctive character for the reasons set out in the attached letter.

The applicant submitted its observations on 13/03/2018, which may be summarised as follows:

1. The mark as a whole is distinctive

2. The word ‘card’ has other meanings, apart from the one described by the Office

3. The Office has accepted similar marks in the past

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.

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).

Registration ‘of a trade mark which consists of signs or indications that are also used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase the goods or services covered by that mark is not excluded as such by virtue of such use’ (04/10/2001, C‑517/99, Bravo, EU:C:2001:510, § 40). ‘Furthermore, it is not appropriate to apply to slogans criteria which are stricter than those applicable to other types of sign’ (11/12/2001, T‑138/00, Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit, EU:T:2001:286, § 44).

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).

A sign, such as a slogan, that fulfils functions other than that of a trade mark in the traditional sense of the term ‘is only distinctive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR if it may be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question, so as to enable the relevant public to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, the goods or services of the owner of the mark from those of a different commercial origin’ (05/12/2002, T‑130/01, Real People, Real Solutions, EU:T:2002:301, § 20 ; and 03/07/2003, T‑122/01, Best Buy, EU:T:2003:183, § 21).

The mark as a whole is distinctive

The applicant holds that the mark as a whole is distinctive. The applicant holds that the mark is not descriptive, but simply allusive or suggestive. The applicant also suggests that the mark does not describe the goods applied for.

In this regard, the Office submits that the mark has been solely objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. In no instance has the Office claimed that the mark is descriptive of the goods, however it believes that the mark lacks the distinctiveness which is required for it to function as a trade mark. The mark is clear and unequivocal to the English speaking public, also taking into account that the goods applied for are in fact ‘cards’. There is no play on words, there are no mental steps needed to understand the meaning of the mark, the mark is simply a slogan, the purpose of which is to highlight the positive aspect of the goods.

The word ‘card’ has other meanings, apart from the one described by the Office

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.)

By analogy, the same reasoning will apply under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. The fact that the word ‘card’ has other dictionary meanings does not have a bearing on the findings of the Office. In this context, the Office believes that card will be understood as a circuit board which will provide memory or can perform other functions. Therefore the combination as a whole of ‘Simply the right card’, will not be seen as a trade mark but simply as a laudatory slogan – as the best or the most favourable and preferred circuit you can have to provide additional memory or functions.

The Office has accepted similar marks in the past

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).

In this regard the Office notes that the marks cited by the applicant, are not similar to the mark at hand. The marks cited are figurative marks with additional elements and a verbal element ‘Simply Right’. In the case at hand the mark contains a direct reference to the goods applied for, and is a word mark. Thus, the word combination ‘Simply the right card’ lacks the distinctiveness it requires to function as a trade mark.

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) EUTMR, the application for European Union trade mark No 17 606 013 is hereby rejected for all the goods claimed.

According to Article 67 EUTMR, you have a right to appeal against this decision. 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 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.

Alistair BUGEJA