Refusal of application for a Community trade mark

(Article 7 CTMR and Rule 11(3) CTMIR)

Alicante, 22/12/2015

PROCTER & GAMBLE France SAS

Danièle Le Carval

163/165 quai Aulagnier

F-92600 Asnières-sur-Seine

FRANCIA

Application No:	014441711
Your reference:	TM-523069/EM-HA
Trade mark:	AIR SPRAY
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	The Procter & Gamble Company One Procter & Gamble Plaza Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3315 ESTADOS UNIDOS (DE AMÉRICA)

The Office raised an objection on 14/08/2015 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) CTMR 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 12/10/2015, which may be summarised as follows:

1. The Applicant argues that similar marks have already been registered by the Office. The applicant sent extracts of earlier registrations accepted

2. The term is hardly used in today’s English. The applicant and as annexes sent Google searches

3. The mark applied for creates an attractive play on words that will be perceived as such.

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 underlying each of them. The general interest to be taken into consideration must reflect different considerations according to the ground for refusal in question (judgment of 16/09/2004, C‑329/02 P, ‘SAT.1’, paragraph 25).

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

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.

(See judgment of 23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, ‘Wrigley’, paragraph 31.)

‘The signs and indications referred to in Article 7(1)(c) [CTMR] 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’ (judgment of 26/11/2003, T‑222/02, ‘ROBOTUNITS’, paragraph 34).

As for the argument that the term is hardly used in today’s English, for a trade mark to be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) CTMR,

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.

(See judgment of 23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, ‘Wrigley’, paragraph 32, emphasis added.)

It is on the basis of that acquired experience that the Office submits that the relevant consumers would perceive the trade mark sought as ordinary and not as the trade mark of a particular proprietor. Since the applicant claims that the trade mark sought is distinctive, despite the Office’s analysis based on the abovementioned experience, it is up to the applicant to provide specific and substantiated information to show that the trade mark sought has distinctive character, either intrinsically or acquired through use, since it is much better placed to do so, given its thorough knowledge of the market (judgment of 05/03/2003, T‑194/01, ‘Tablette ovoïde’, paragraph 48).

Moreover, it is clear from the wording of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR that a minimum degree of distinctive character is sufficient to render inapplicable the ground of refusal set out in that article (see judgment of 27 February 2002, T-34/00, ‘Eurocool’, para. 39 and judgment of 27 September 2005, T-123/04, ‘Cargo Partner’, para. 45). The absence of distinctive character cannot arise merely from the finding that the sign in question lacks an additional element of imagination or does not look unusual or striking (see judgment of 5 April 2001, T-87/00, ‘Easybank’, para. 39).

However, the fact that the sign at issue can have several meanings, that it can be a play on words and that it can be perceived as ironic, surprising and unexpected, does not suffice to make it distinctive. Those various elements only make that sign distinctive in so far as it is immediately perceived by the relevant public as an indication of the commercial origin of the applicant’s services, and so as to enable the relevant public to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, the applicant’s services from those of a different commercial origin (see judgment of 15/09/2005, T-320/03, 'LIVE RICHLY', paragraph 84).

Finally, and concerning the applicant’s argument that a number of similar registrations have been accepted by OHIM, according to settled case‑law, ‘decisions concerning registration of a sign as a Community 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 Community trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of the CTMR, as interpreted by the Community judicature, and not on the basis of previous Office practice (judgment of 15/09/2005, C‑37/03 P, ‘BioID’, paragraph 47 and judgment of 09/10/2002, T‑36/01, ‘Surface d’une plaque de verre’, paragraph 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’ (judgment of 27/02/2002, T‑106/00, ‘STREAMSERVE’, paragraph 67).

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) CTMR, the application for Community trade mark No 14 441 711 is hereby rejected

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.

Agueda MAS PASTOR