商標登録insideNews: St Andrews Links Trust loses legal bid to trademark town’s name | The National

St Andrews Links Trust owns the rights to the town’s name in relation to goods like golf equipment, jewellery, clothes and kitchen utensils, and planned to expand ownership to travel, accommodation and catering services.The trust hoped doing so would protect their brand and prevent other global companies using the name.But the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) said a town’s name cannot be trademarked for such services.

情報源: St Andrews Links Trust loses legal bid to trademark town’s name | The National

Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark 03/09/2019

Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark
(Article 7 and Article 42(2) EUTMR)

Alicante, 03/09/2019

Application No:
018024589
Your reference:
048031-900461
Trade mark:
ST ANDREWS

Mark type:
Word mark
Applicant:
St. Andrews Links Ltd
Pilmour House
St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SF
REINO UNIDO

The Office raised an objection on 09/04/2019 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.

After an extension of two months, the applicant submitted its observations on 14/08/2019, which may be summarised as follows.

1. The applicant has six marks consisting of ‘ST ANDREWS’ registered with the Office.

2. In one of the registered marks, the application was before the Board of Appeal, which held that there must be a close relationship between the goods and services and the geographical term ‘ST ANDREWS’.

3. The mark ‘ST ANDREWS’ cannot be considered as an indication of the geographical origin of the goods and services for which protection is sought. The mark is therefore not descriptive, but distinctive.

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.

Descriptiveness and distinctiveness

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).

The applicant argued that ‘ST ANDREWS’ cannot be considered as an indication of geographical origin of the goods and services covered by the objection. In its argumentation, the applicant refers to the section in the Office’s Guidelines on geographical terms and to (02/10/2017, R 92/2017‑4, ST ANDREWS, § 47-48).

The Office disagrees. The registration of geographical names as trade marks is not possible where such a geographical name is either already famous, or is known for the category of goods concerned, and is therefore associated with those goods or services in the mind of the relevant class of persons, or it is reasonable to assume that the term may, in view of the relevant public, designate the geographical origin of the category of goods and/or services concerned (15/01/2015, T‑197/13, MONACO, EU:T:2015:16, § 51; 25/10/2005, T‑379/03, Cloppenburg, EU:T:2005:373, § 38).

‘ST ANDREWS’ is a town in eastern Scotland, that is, known world-wide for its historic golf courses, it is reasonable to assume that the relevant consumers, at least those with interest in golf, is familiar with the town.

With regard to arranging, organizing and conducting travels, temporary accommodation reservation services, temporary accommodation services and provision of food and beverages, it is reasonable to assume that ‘ST ANDREWS’ will be perceived as indicating that the services are provided in ‘ST ANDREWS’ or are arrangements to visit ‘ST ANDREWS’.

While the relevant consumers may not automatically believe that the objected goods and services are directly linked to golf, ‘ST ANDEWS’ is a famous tourist destination, in particular for golfs enthusiasts. They will book for accommodation 1, travel arrangements and seek touristic information about the destination.

With regard to the printed matter and media content, it is reasonable to assume that ‘ST ANDREWS’ is the subject matter of these goods, as they provide information about the town and the world-famous golf facilities.

With regard to the applicant’s argument that ‘ST ANDREWS’ was accepted for multimedia content in EUTM No 17 928 454, and therefore the mark cannot be considered descriptive for media content, ‘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’ (27/02/2002, T‑106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 67).

Media content may be e-books and electronic magazines about the ‘ST ANDREWS’ tourist destination, therefore the Office maintains that the mark is descriptive of the subject matter of these goods.

The fact that ‘ST ANDREWS’ for certain services may be perceived as an indication of the geographical place where the services are rendered (02/10/2017, R 92/2017‑4, ST ANDREWS, § 52; 20/11/2018, T‑790/17, EU:T:2018:811, ST ANDREWS, § 56). This decision must also apply in analogy to goods where the geographical indication is the subject matter.

With regard to the applicant’s argument that the relevant consumers would not link the goods and services to the geographical indication, but to the reputation associated with the applicant’s courses and facilities, the applicant has not submitted evidence that the relevant consumers would perceive ‘ST ANDREWS’ as an indication of trade origin pursuant to Article 7(3) EUTMR.

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).

Given that the sign has a clear descriptive meaning, 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 or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

As the Office maintains that ‘ST ANDREWS’ is descriptive for the objected goods and services, the mark is also non-distinctive.

With regard to the applicant’s argument that in the previous case of 03/06/2010, B 1 384 066, the Office held that ‘ST ANDREWS’ was not descriptive for any of the goods. The goods concerned were toys, golf and sport equipment and apparatus in Class 28. The Office has not previously held that the mark is not descriptive, but distinctive for the goods and services for which protection is sought.

Previous registered registrations

As regards the applicant’s argument that a number of similar registrations have been accepted by the Office, according to settled case-law, ‘decisions concerning registration of a sign as a European Union 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 European Union trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of the EUTMR, as interpreted by the Union judicature, and not on the basis of previous Office practice (15/09/2005, C‑37/03 P, BioID, EU:C:2005:547, § 47; 09/10/2002, T‑36/01, Glass Pattern, EU:T:2002:245, § 35).

The applicant highlighted six registered cases consisting of the mark ‘ST ANDREWS’, namely EUTMs No 14 648 240, No 17 928 454, No 17 703 208, No 17 604 968, No 13 006 093 and No 11 424 199.

The applicant drew particular attention to EUTM No 17 604 968, which is a division form application EUTM No 9 586 348, where the objection should be waived for Classes 25, 28, 35 and partly for Class 41, as the link between the objected goods and services and the mark ‘ST ANDREWS’ was insufficiently direct (02/10/2017, R 92/2017‑4, ST ANDREWS).

Moreover, the objection should be maintained for the remaining services in Class 41, namely arranging and conducting entertainment conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; club services [entertainment or education]; providing a website featuring information regarding conferences, congresses, events competitions and seminars; special event planning; organization of cultural events and of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes; publication of books, electronic books and journals on-line; vocational guidance and instruction services [education or training advice], as

the sign ‘ST ANDREWS’ sends out a clear and unequivocal message to the relevant consumers, in particular golf professionals and enthusiasts/amateurs all over the European Union, that they originate from ‘ST ANDREWS’ or are being organised there, and that for that reason they have a close relationship with the golf sport, for which the Scottish town is world famous.

(02/10/2017, R 92/2017‑4, ST ANDREWS, § 53).

This argument was also upheld by the General court in the ‘ST ANDREWS’ case (20/11/2018, T‑790/17, EU:T:2018:811, ST ANDREWS, § 56).

In analogy with the decision of the General Court, the objection to the registration of media content in Class 9, printed matter in Class 16, arranging, organising and conducting travels in Class 39 and temporary accommodation reservation services, temporary accommodation services, provision of food and beverages in Class 43 is in accordance with the Office’s practice and the principle of equal treatment.

‘ST ANDREWS’ is the subject matter of the printed matter and the media content, and is analogous to that the Court held in relation to publication of books, electronic books and journals on-line in Class 41. With regard to arranging, organising and conducting travels to and temporary accommodation reservation services, temporary accommodation services, provision of food and beverages in ‘ST ANDREWS’ will indicate the services are provided in or close to ‘ST ANDREWS’ in analogy to the Courts decision in relation to services in Class 41.

The Office, therefore, maintains that ‘ST ANDREWS’ is descriptive and non-distinctive for the goods and services concerned.

Further proceedings

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 18 024 589 is hereby rejected for the following goods and services:

Class 9 Media content.

Class 16 Printed matter.

Class 39 Arranging, organizing and conducting travels.

Class 43 Temporary accommodation reservation services; temporary accommodation services; provision of food and beverage.

The application may proceed for the remaining services, namely:

Class 9 Games software; computer and video game cartridges; computer game software for hand-held units for playing video games.

Class 16 Stationery.

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.

Anja Pernille LIGUNA

商標登録insideNews: New online services in the Benelux Office for IP | EUIPO

The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), with the support of the EUIPO’s European Cooperation Service, has improved the services it provides to trade mark and design applicants through the launch of new online services.The BOIP platform now provides four additional online services: Change of Representative and Transfer of Rights for trade marks and for designs, which will help modernise IP-related operations in the Benelux. These new digital services, available since 12 May 2020, complement BOIP’s existing services (Change of Name, Change of Address, Change of Name and Address, Renewal Trade Mark, Renewal Design, Opposition and e-Filing Trade Mark/Design).

情報源: EUIPO – New online services in the B

商標登録insideNews: HDB: over half of applicants have EUTM classification pre-ac |EUIPO

Approximately half of all direct EUTM applications at EUIPO are now fully classified automatically via the Harmonised Database (HDB) system.The HDB contains goods and services terminology  that has already been pre-approved by all national and regional intellectual property offices in the EU. Terms chosen from the HDB are automatically accepted at EUIPO.

情報源: EUIPO – HDB: over half of applicants have EUTM classification pre-ac

商標登録insideNews: IP Australia joins global trade marks database TMView | IP Australia

IP Australia continues to support the global IP community by joining TMView, an initiative of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). TMView is an online tool which allows users to perform word and image searches for trade marks from 74 participating IP offices around the world.

情報源: IP Australia joins global trade marks database TMView | IP Australia

商標登録insideNews: EUIPO – Consultation on CP11 – New Types of Trade

The draft Common Practice documents of the work-streams 1 and 2 of the project CP11 ‘New Types of Trade Mark – Examination of formal requirements and grounds for refusal and invalidity’ have been made available in English for comments.

情報源: EUIPO – Consultation on CP11 – New Types of Trade

商標登録insideNews: New Zealand joins TMview | EUIPO

On 17 February 2020, The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) made its trade mark data available in the TMview search tool.

情報源: EUIPO – New Zealand joins TMview

As of 17 February 2020, IPONZ has made its trade mark data available to the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) ‘TMview’ search tool.

情報源: New Zealand’s trade marks are now on EUIPO’s TMview | Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand

With IPONZ on board, the tool now contains data from 73 participating offices.

商標登録insideNews: Just published – EUIPO Guidelines | twitter from EUIPO

商標登録insideNews: 英国のEU離脱(ブレグジット)による特許・商標・意匠への影響 | 経済産業省 特許庁

商標 移行期間中引き続き、英国はEU商標制度の構成国の一部のままとなり、EU商標による保護は英国に及ぶ。マドリッド制度を通じて保護されるEUを指定する商標の国際登録の効果は、引き続き英国に及ぶ。移行期間の終了後EU商標制度によって保護される商標は英国においては保護の対象とされなくなるが、移行期間の終了時(2021年1月1日)に、UKIPOは、既存のEU商標を有する全ての権利者に同等の英国商標を付与する。

情報源: 英国のEU離脱(ブレグジット)による特許・商標・意匠への影響 | 経済産業省 特許庁

<移行期間中>
引き続き、英国は EU 商標制度の一部のままとなり、EU 商標は英国に及ぶ。マドリッド制度を通じて保護される EU を指定する商標の国際登録は、引き続き英国に及ぶ。
<移行期間の終了後>
EU 商標は英国においては商標を保護しなくなる。移行期間の終了時(2021 年 1 月 1 日)に、UKIPO は、既存の EU 商標を有する全ての権利者に同等の英国商標を付与する(離脱協定第 54 条)。出願人は、係属中の EU 商標出願を有する場合、2021 年 1 月 1 日の後 9 月以内に同等の英国商標を登録するために出願を行うことができる。出願人は、係属中の EU 商標の先の出願日を維持する(離脱協定第 59 条)。この場合、通常の英国の料金が適用される。移行期間の終了前に保護されている商標の国際登録は、2020 年 12 月 31 日の後も引き続き英国において保護される(離脱協定第 56 条)。

欧州の関係当局、英国の欧州連合(EU)離脱(Brexit)の知的財産への影響に関する情報を公表 2 0 2 0 年 2 月 3 日 JETRO デュッセルドルフ事務所

商標登録insideNews: Impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU – EUTMs and RCDs | EUIPO

The Withdrawal Agreement stipulates that during a transition period that will last until 31 December 2020, EU law remains applicable to and in the UK. This extends to the EUTM and RCD Regulations and their implementing instruments.

情報源: Impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU – EUTMs and RCDs: updated information

No Deal Brexit: Advice for IP Practitioners, 1:57

Parallel trade and IP – what will happen when we leave the EU?, 2:48

商標登録insideNews:  A trade mark can be: | EUIPO

From EUIPO’s twitter