noRWAY
steinar Lie
Bryn Aarfl ot
In WHosE
IntEREsts?
Applications for trademarks that are devoid of distinctive character are are refused on the grounds that they are devoid of distinctive character even
normally rejected. But there is no real need to refuse such marks unless if they may not be used in trade to describe the relevant goods or services or
they are descriptive or there are other reasons to keep them available to their essential characteristics?
other traders. Th e practice of refusing marks solely out of consideration for
consumers is impractical and illogical.
Th e ECJ has held that each of the grounds for refusal to register listed in
Article 7(1) of Regulation 40/94 is independent of the others and calls for
Th ere are two main reasons why trademarks are refused: because the marks
separate examination, and that the various grounds for refusal must be
are devoid of distinctive character or because they are descriptive marks.
interpreted in the light of the general interest underlying each of them. It
Th is is somewhat tediously worded in the Trademarks Directive Article 3
was pointed out that the notion of general interest underlying Article 7(1)
and in Regulation 40/94 Article 7, which states that the following shall not be
(b) is “indissociable from the essential function of a trade mark, which is to
registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid: “trademarks
guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product or service to the
which are devoid of any distinctive character; and marks which consist
consumer or end-user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion,
exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate
to distinguish the product or service from others which have another
the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or
origin”. Recently, in Case T-471/07 (TAME IT), the Court of First Instance
the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other
(post Lisbon Treaty, the General Court) referred to well-established case law
characteristics of the goods”.
when it stated that the marks referred to in Article 7(1)(b) are those that are
Th ere is, of course, every reason to refuse marks that fall under the
regarded as incapable of performing the essential function of a trademark,
defi nition given in Article 7(1)(c). Th is notes that marks (mostly words and
namely that of identifying the commercial origin of the goods or services
expressions) that may hinder free competition in business if owned by one
in question, thus enabling the consumer who acquired them to repeat the
person or organisation could harm competitors by impairing their ability
experience if it proves to be positive or to avoid it if it proves to be negative.
to communicate with consumers. Th is may give an unfair advantage to
So the provision in Article 7(1)(b) is draft ed out of consideration for the
some businesses.
consumers’ best interests. But what is the consumer’s best interest doing in
Further, we know from the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
a directive, a regulation or in comparable national trademarks acts designed
that descriptive marks are also devoid of distinctive character within the to regulate the use and registration of trademarks? Th ere are of course also
meaning of Article 7(1)(b). In that sense, Article 7(1)(c) may be regarded as provisions in Article 7 concerning deceptive marks and public interest, but
lex specialis and Article 7(1)(b) as lex generalis. But what about marks that in reality, trademark law does not actually protect consumers.
118 World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 www.worldipreview.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173