Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 EUTMR and Rule 11(3) EUTMIR)

Alicante, 13/03/2017

Zdeněk Hromádka

Rašinova 522

CZ-760 01 Zlin

REPÚBLICA CHECA

Application No:	014972211
Your reference:	101408151207
Trade mark:
Mark type:	Figurative mark
Applicant:	TESCOMA s.r.o. U Tescomy 241 CZ-760 01 Zlín REPÚBLICA CHECA

The Office raised an objection on 29/01/2016 and 07/09/2016 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR 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 letters.

The applicant submitted its observations on the communication of 07/09/2016 on 03/11/2016 and 14/11/2016, which may be summarised as follows:

• The applicant is of the opinion that the mark has acquired distinctive character as a result of a commercial usage of the trade mark on the Italian market. Products marked by the mark ’Della Casa’ are in Italy sold in more than 140 retail units. They are also marketed vie e-shop. The applicant submitted figures related to the investment into promotion and advertising of products bearing the mark ‘Della Casa’.

The applicant enclosed further evidence of acquired distinctiveness:

• Invoices

• Packaging of the products

• Print screens from online shops

• Photos of various stores

• Information regarding the figures related to the investment into promotion and advertising

• Copies from various magazines with information about their circulation – promotional material

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.

The applicant requested an opportunity to make further submissions in the event that the Office decides to maintain the objection. The Office has already raised all its arguments in the previous communication and the applicant had an opportunity to submit its observations. The Office does not raise any new arguments in this communication. Furthermore, the Office considers the time given to the applicant to submit evidence of acquired distinctive character sufficient and, therefore, the Office does not see any reason for granting additional time to the applicant to submit further supporting evidence.

Having considered all the arguments in your letters, the Office maintains the previously raised objection on absolute grounds.

While it remains the view of the Office that the absolute grounds objections raised against this application are valid, the evidence of use submitted is sufficiently convincing to support a finding of acquired distinctiveness of some goods applied for. Therefore, the Office accepts the application for some goods applied for under Article 7(3) EUTMR. The application will proceed accordingly. The publication of the application will refer to the acceptance upon the basis of acquired distinctiveness.

After giving due consideration, the Office has decided to accept the application under Article 7(3) EUTMR for the following goods:

Class 21 Misky, hluboké misky, misky na uchovávání másla, nádoby na přípravu zmrzliny, máselničky, poklopy na máslo (víčka na máselničky), poklopy na sýr, košíky na chléb (pro použití v domácnosti).

The objection is maintained for the remaining goods.

Under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ are not to be registered.

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).

Regarding the applicant’s claim that the mark has acquired distinctive character, the Office notes that the applicant has to submit sufficient number of relevant evidence to prove this fact. The applicant submitted some evidence to prove that the mark has acquired distinctive character. The Office assessed submitted evidence.

Under Article 7(3) [EUTMR], the absolute grounds for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of that regulation do not preclude registration of a mark if, in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested, it has become distinctive in consequence of the use which has been made of it. In the circumstances referred to in Article 7(3) EUTMR, the fact that the sign which constitutes the mark in question is actually perceived by the relevant section of the public as an indication of the commercial origin of a product or service is the result of the economic effort made by the trade mark applicant. That fact justifies putting aside the public-interest considerations underlying Article 7(1)(b) to (d) [EUTMR], which require that the marks referred to in those provisions may be freely used by all in order to avoid conceding an unjustified competitive advantage to a single trader … .

First, it is clear from the case-law that the acquisition of distinctiveness through use of a mark requires that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public identifies the products or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the mark. However, the circumstances in which the condition as to the acquisition of distinctiveness through use may be regarded as satisfied cannot be shown to exist solely by reference to general, abstract data such as specific percentages … .

Second, in order to have the registration of a trade mark accepted under Article 7(3) EUTMR, the distinctive character acquired through the use of that trade mark must be demonstrated in the part of the European Union where it was devoid of any such character under Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of that regulation … .

Third, in assessing, in a particular case, whether a mark has become distinctive through use, account must be taken of factors such as, inter alia: the market share held by the mark, how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been, the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark, the proportion of the relevant class of persons who, because of the mark, identify goods as originating from a particular undertaking and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations. If, on the basis of those factors, the relevant class of persons, or at least a significant proportion thereof, identify goods as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark, it must be concluded that the requirement for registering the mark laid down in Article 7(3) EUTMR is satisfied … .

Fourth, according to the case-law, the distinctiveness of a mark, including that acquired through use, must also be assessed in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for and in the light of the presumed perception of an average consumer of the category of goods or services in question, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect … .

(10/11/2004, T‑396/02, Karamelbonbon, EU:T:2004:329, § 55-59; 04/05/1999, C‑108/97 & C‑109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 52; 22/06/2006, C‑25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 75; and 18/06/2002, C‑299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377, § 63).

The Office indicated, in its notice of 29/01/2016, that the relevant public was Italian speaking.

A trade mark must be assessed in relation to the goods in respect of which registration of the sign is sought and in relation to the perception of the relevant public.

Regarding the evidence submitted, all the submitted evidence relates merely to some of the goods applied for (misky, hluboké misky, misky na uchovávání másla, nádoby na přípravu zmrzliny, máselničky, poklopy na máslo (víčka na máselničky), poklopy na sýr, košíky na chléb (pro použití v domácnosti); for these goods the Office decided to accept the application under Article 7(3) EUTMR. In relation to the other goods no evidence was submitted.

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for European Union trade mark No 14 972 228 is hereby rejected for the following goods/services:

Class 21 Nerez kuchyňské nářadí a nádobí, grily neelektrické, nářadí na gril, jehlice, špejle (kovové) na pečení a grilování, mixéry s výjimkou elektrických pro použití v domácnosti, šlehače kuchyňské s výjimkou elektrických, termosky, termosky na jídlo, konvice z nerezavějící oceli, tlakové hrnce, kávovary neelektrické, konvice na čaj, konvice na kávu, schránky na čaj, sklenice na pití, šálky s výjimkou šálků z drahých kovů, kuchyňské potřeby jako nádobí, hrnce, kastroly, skleněné poklice, pokličky, konvičky, pánve, pánve se speciálními povlaky, formy na pečení, pekáče, plechy na pečení, zapékací mísy, jídelní servisy, servírovací soupravy, talíře, výrobky pro stolování z nerezavějící oceli, tácy, podtácky, podnosy kromě papírových a určených k prostírání, podnosy na použití v domácnosti, podnosy ozdobné na stůl, jídlonosiče, mísy, hluboké mísy, misky na mycí houby, misky na ovoce, mísy na zeleninu, mísy polévkové, mísy salátové, podšálky a jejich soupravy, nádobí pro mikrovlnné trouby, nádobí pro mrazicí a chladicí boxy, chladicí návleky na láhve pro domácnost, kuchyňské nářadí a ostatní pomůcky do kuchyně jako otvíráky lahví, otvíráky na korkové a korunkové uzávěry, formičky, tvořítka na led, skřipce, mašlovačky, šlehací metly, naběračky kuchyňské, stěrky, vařečky, paličky, pěnovačky, cedníky, košíky na cezení, vyvařovací košíky, sítka, nálevky, násypky, skládací rošty, napařovací vějíře, napařovací podložky, struhadla, válečky a tvořítka na těsto, vykrajovátka na těsto, zdobičky, servírovací lopatky, nádoby na přípravu ledových nápojů, kuchyňské nádoby skleněné, nádoby na cukr, nádoby na smetanu, dózy, dávkovací dózy jako potřeby v domácnosti s výjimkou nádob na odměřování, kuchyňské zásobníky, schránky na chléb a pečivo, solničky, pepřenky, cukřenky, kořenky a jejich soupravy, ruční mlýnky pro domácnost, ruční mlýnky na koření, ruční mlýnky na kávu, párátka, stojánky na párátka, špejle, stojánky na ubrousky, bloky na nože, obracečky, šťouchadla brambor, loupače na jablka, lisy na česnek (kuchyňské potřeby), lisy na citron, dávkovače plastové, věšáky kuchyňského nářadí, krájecí desky plastové, dřevěné, skleněné, konvičky s pístem i bez pístu ze skla, kovu, plastu a jejich kombinací, hrníčky, vyluhovací sítka, nálevky tekutin, kroužky na hrdla lahví, visačky na hrdla lahví kromě papírových, vakuové uzávěry a vakuové pumpy, kuchyňské pumpy na kečup, šejkry, míchátka, sítka se spirálou, plastové podnosy a podložky pod horké nádobí, drobné náčiní pro domácnost jako klipsy, svorky nebo poutka, prachovky, utěrky na čištění, hadry na čištění, hadry na utírání prachu, houby na použití v domácnosti, čisticí potřeby, rukavice pro domácnost, kartáče, kartáče na čištění nádrží a nádob, kartáče na umývání nádobí, kartáčky na umývání nádobí, kuchyňské desky, podložky na mýdlo kovové, podložky kromě papírových určené k prostírání, podložky na krájení pro použití v kuchyni, baňky, lahve (skleněné nádoby), čajníky, čajová vajíčka (sítka), čajové soupravy, držáky na ubrousky, džbánky, džbány, espresa (kávovary) neelektrické, filtry kávové neelektrické, hůlky, tyčinky jídelní (kuchyňské náčiní), chladicí, mrazicí láhve, kalíšky na vajíčka, domácí a kuchyňské potřeby a nádoby z kameniny, stolní karafy na olej, karafy, stolní lahve, kávové soupravy, kbelíky na led, keramika na použití v domácnosti, koše na odpadky, koše na použití v domácnosti, koše piknikové (včetně nádobí), kroužky na ubrousky, křišťálové sklo (výrobky z-), strojky na výrobu nudlí, porcelán, prkénka na krájení chleba, překapávače kávy, neelektrické, rendlíky na smažení, skleněné zátky, slánky, stojánky na odkládání nožů, trychtýře, tyčinky na míchání koktailů.

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.

Klara BOUSKOVA