Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 and Article 42(2) EUTMR)]

Alicante, 25/01/2018

Air Raid Clothing Ltd

Unit 70 Burners Lane Kiln Farm

Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK11 3HD

REINO UNIDO

Application No:	017246414
Your reference:
Trade mark:	Dressdown
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	Air Raid Clothing Ltd Unit 70 Burners Lane Kiln Farm Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK11 3HD REINO UNIDO

The Office raised an objection on 04.10.2017 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.

The applicant submitted its observations on 05.11.2017, which may be summarised as follows.

• The trademark has been registered with the UK IPO in class 25. The brand logo for Dressdown has also been registered with the UK IPO.

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)(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).

This is clearly the case with the mark at issue.

As indicated in the previous letter of the Office, the trademark Dressdown has a clear descriptive meaning in relation to part of the goods applied for, i.e. clothing, headgear and footwear. The average English-speaking consumer would understand the sign as a meaningful expression, namely, casual/informal clothing, headgear and footwear.

Given that the sign has a clear descriptive meaning, as explained above, it is also devoid of any distinctive character and therefore objectionable under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, as it is incapable of performing the essential function of a trade mark, which is to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of its competitors.

As regards the national decisions referred to by the applicant (UK 3248921 and UK 3109204 (figurative)), 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. (27/02/2002, T‑106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 47).

Consequently, taken as a whole, the sign for which protection is sought is descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character, and is not capable of distinguishing the goods to which an objection has been raised within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) and

(c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR.

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for European Union trade mark No 017246414 is hereby rejected for the following goods:

Class 25 Clothing; Headgear; Footwear.

The application may proceed for the remaining goods, namely:

Class 20 Cushions.

Class 25 Aprons.

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.

Helen BIRCH