Refusal of application for a Community trade mark

(Article 7 CTMR and Rule 11(3) CTMIR)

Alicante, 08/01/2016

European Board of Veterinary Specialisation

St. Voutyra 11

GR-54627 Thessaloniki

GRECIA

Application No:	014348403
Your reference:
Trade mark:	Veterinary Specialist in
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	European Board of Veterinary Specialisation St. Voutyra 11 GR-54627 Thessaloniki GRECIA

The Office raised an objection on 31/08/2015 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR 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 22/10/2015, which may be summarised as follows:

1. The applicant, the European Board of Veterinary Specialisation, is one of two organizations responsible for veterinary specialisation in Europe. It creates and continually develops frameworks for training and qualifications focused on services provided by the veterinary profession to the public; it grants permission to use the title ‘European Veterinary Specialist’ to veterinary specialists who have completed training and examination procedures according to EBVS guidelines; it maintains a register of specialists recognised by the EBVS. The EBVS-approved title ‘European Veterinary Specialist’ is currently recognised in many European countries on a national level. ‘Veterinary specialist in (name of speciality)’ refers to a veterinarian who has received a minimum of four years postgraduate specialist training. In order to avoid confusion amongst the public and the profession, the current trade mark application has been made.

2. The applicant states that the title ‘Veterinary specialist in’ is distinctive because it will only be used followed by the name of the discipline or speciality one is active in.

Decision

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.

1. The Office has read the explanations of the applicant regarding the activities it carries out as a training organisation with great interest. As explained by the applicant, ‘Veterinary specialist in’ is a qualification issued by the European Board of Veterinary Specialisation. Nevertheless, the fact that ‘Veterinary specialist in’ is the title of a qualification, which is not disputed by the Office, does not mean that the expression is distinctive and functions as a badge of origin. As stated by the Office in its provisional refusal, the expression simply means ‘a person who is specialised in veterinary medicine’ and who is concerned with…. A very clear message is conveyed by the expression applied for and particularly in connection with the services at issue which, after a limitation requested by the applicant, are:

Class 41: Providing of training; certification of veterinary specialists.

The applicant provides certification for veterinary specialists. ‘Veterinary specialist in’ simply reflects that. The Office fails to see how consumers would be able to identify the applicant’s mark as a distinctive mark since it consists of words which merely reflect the services provided. There is nothing about this expression which would serve to distinguish it as belonging to the applicant alone, and not any other educational establishment. Essentially, the expression ‘Veterinary specialist in’ is banal and the typical wording one might expect to see in a title issued to professionals in the field.

2. Regarding the second argument put forward by the applicant, the Office can only take into account the expression as applied for, in this case ‘Veterinary specialist in’. It cannot consider whether the applicant intends to use this expression in conjunction with other words and whether or not these other words would add distinctiveness to the mark applied for. As already explained above, the Office deems that the mark is not distinctive in connection with the services at issue.

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR, the application for Community trade mark No 14 348 403 is hereby rejected for all the services claimed.

According to Article 59 CTMR, you have a right to appeal this decision. According to Article 60 CTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing with the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. 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 800 has been paid.

Lucinda CARNEY