Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2020 in Review Tom Scourfield—CMS London, United Kingdom, and Warsaw, Poland with Jordi Güell—Güell IP Barcelona, Spain Martin Viefhues—JONAS Rechtsanwaltgesellschaft mbH Cologne, Germany Anne Marie Verschuur—NautaDutilh Amsterdam, The Netherlands Pier Luigi Roncaglia—Spheriens Florence, Italy Sabine Rigaud—CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats Paris, France Ivo Rungg and Hellmut Buchroithner—Binder Grösswang Vienna, Austria Nina Ringen and Jonas Lykke Hartvig-Rovsing—Lundgrens Copenhagen, Denmark Johan Norderyd and Christian Sundén—Lindahl Malmö, Sweden Tanguy de Haan—NautaDutilh Brussels, Belgium Alistair Payne—Acuatus Solicitors Dublin, Ireland Ewa Skrzydło-Tefelska—Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak Warsaw, Poland Diogo Almeida—CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut Lisbon, Portugal Marina Perraki—Tsibanoulis & Partners Athens, Greece March–April, 2021 Vol. 111 No. 2 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 675 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5704 Telephone: +1 (212) 642-1700 email: [email protected] OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION TIKI DARE ................................................................................................................................... President ZEEGER VINK ..................................................................................................................... President-Elect JOMARIE FREDERICKS ......................................................................................................... Vice President DANA NORTHCOTT .............................................................................................................. Vice President ELISABETH BRADLEY .................................................................................................................. Treasurer DEBORAH HAMPTON ................................................................................................................... Secretary ERIN HENNESSY ........................................................................................................................... Counsel ETIENNE SANZ DE ACEDO ..................................................................................... Chief Executive Officer The Trademark Reporter Committee EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CHAIR STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF GLENN MITCHELL WILLARD KNOX Senior Editors RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN PAMELA S. CHESTEK ANDREW J. GRAY FABRIZIO MIAZZETTO KAREN ELBURG BRYAN K. WHEELOCK LESLEY GROSSBERG VERENA VON BOMHARD Director of Legal Resources LIZ HANELLIN Senior Staff Editor Staff Editor BEVERLY HARRIS ELIZABETH VENTURO Senior Legal Editor Compositor ROSEMARY DESTEFANO BARBARA MOTTER Editors GAIL NEVIUS ABBAS JORDI GÜELL SHANA OLSON THOMAS AGNELLO MICHAEL HANDLER R. TERRY PARKER EUGENY ALEXANDROV NATHAN HARRIS LUIS HENRIQUE PORANGABA TARA ALLSTUN BARRY HORWITZ YASHVARDHAN RANA CHARLENE AZEMA GANG HU BRANDON RESS DANIEL BERESKIN BRUCE ISAACSON RICHARD RIVERA SUBHASH BHUTORIA SIEGRUN KANE SUSAN RUSSELL JULIAN BIBB INGRIDA KARINA-BERZINA FLORIAN SCHWAB STEPHANIE BUNTIN ELISABETH KASZNAR FEKETE TOM SCOURFIELD ROBERT CAMERON SONIA KATYAL RINITA SIRCAR JEANNETTE CARMADELLA LINDSAY KOROTKIN GIULIO ENRICO SIRONI JACQUELINE CHORN SENTHIL KUMAR RANDY SPRINGER THEODORE H. DAVIS JR. SCOTT LEBSON CORY STRUBLE MICHAEL DENNISTON SONAL MADAN MARTIN VIEFHUES CATHERINE ESCOBEDO J. DAVID MAYBERRY JEFFREY WAKOLBINGER DÉSIRÉE FIELDS BRYCE MAYNARD RITA WEEKS ALEXANDRA GEORGE JAMES MCALLISTER JOHN L. WELCH STUART GREEN J. THOMAS MCCARTHY MARTIN WIRTZ STACY GROSSMAN CATHERINE MITROS RUMENG ZHANG Advisory Board MILES ALEXANDER ROBERT KUNSTADT PASQUALE RAZZANO WILLIAM BORCHARD THEODORE MAX SUSAN REISS LANNING BRYER KATHLEEN MCCARTHY PIER LUIGI RONCAGLIA JESSICA CARDON JONATHAN MOSKIN HOWARD SHIRE SANDRA EDELMAN VINCENT PALLADINO JERRE SWANN, SR. ANTHONY FLETCHER JOHN PEGRAM STEVEN WEINBERG ROBERT RASKOPF The views expressed in The Trademark Reporter (TMR) do not necessarily reflect those of the International Trademark Association (INTA). To fulfill its mission of delivering cutting-edge scholarship on trademarks, brands, and related intellectual property to its readers, the TMR sources content reflecting a diversity of viewpoints; the views expressed in any given article, commentary, or book review are those of the individual authors. The TMR (ISSN 0041-056X) is published electronically six times a year by INTA, 675 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5704 USA. INTA, the INTA logo, INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION, POWERFUL NETWORK POWERFUL BRANDS, THE TRADEMARK REPORTER, and inta.org are trademarks, service marks, and/or registered trademarks of the International Trademark Association in the United States and certain other jurisdictions. The Trademark Reporter® Copyright 2021, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved Vol. 111 March–April, 2021 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL REVIEW OF EU TRADEMARK LAW 2020 in Review I. Introduction ........................................................................... 506 A. About This Review ........................................................... 506 B. Legislative Change and Terminology ............................. 508 C. Organization of Material in This Review ....................... 508 II. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration, and for Cancellation ........................................................................... 509 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 509 B. Legal Texts ....................................................................... 511 C. Cases ................................................................................ 516 1. EU—CJEU—When might a trademark be contrary to the accepted principles of morality? ...... 516 2. EU—CJEU—How must distinctive character be assessed for trademarks that are exclusively affixed to the goods used to provide the services for which registration is sought? .............................. 517 3. EU—GC—Was an advertising slogan a mere promotional statement or distinctive? ...................... 520 This issue of THE TRADEMARK REPORTER® (TMR) should be cited as 111 TMR ___ (2021). ii Vol. 111 TMR 4. EU—GC—In terms of descriptiveness, is it sufficient for the relevant public to associate the trademark with a characteristic of the services concerned? .................................................................. 521 5. EU—GC—Does the mere assembling of words amount to an unusual structure for the purposes of distinctiveness? ...................................................... 523 6. EU—GC—Is a figurative trademark consisting of a checkerboard design capable of having distinctive character? ................................................ 524 7. EU—GC—Can a color mark covering goods in a specific market that is subject to an informally agreed-upon color convention be inherently distinctive or can it acquire distinctiveness through use? ............................................................... 527 8. Austria—Austrian Supreme Court and Higher Regional Court Vienna—Principles of the registrability of “contourless” color per se trademarks ................................................................. 530 9. UK—HC—The requirement to specify the particular hue of a color featured in a trademark does not depend on whether the color is “an essential characteristic” of that trademark ............. 534 10. France—French Supreme Court—Does a trademark that is the mere designation of a regulated activity qualify as contrary to public policy? Could such trademark nevertheless acquire distinctiveness through use or should it remain available for all market players, regardless of the extent of the owner’s use? ............. 536 11. Benelux—Benelux Court of Justice—Can an expression composed of English words be entirely descriptive and accordingly unregistrable in the Benelux for certain goods? ...... 538 12. Poland—Polish District Administrative Court— Lack of distinctive character and descriptiveness of the sign are two separate grounds for refusal to be addressed separately ........................................ 539 Vol. 111 TMR iii 13. Sweden—Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal—What factors are relevant for avoiding a registered three-dimensional trademark to be declared invalid and for proving that such a trademark is not devoid of any distinctive character? ................................................................... 540 14. UK—HC—Are the shapes of the iconic LAND ROVER DEFENDER SUV distinctive enough to qualify for trademark protection? ............................. 544 15. Poland—Polish Supreme Administrative Court— Evaluation of registrability of a trademark incorporating an imitation of known and protected symbols together with other graphic elements ..................................................................... 547 III. Conflict with Earlier Rights—Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration .......................................................... 549 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 549 B. Legal Texts ....................................................................... 551 C. Cases ................................................................................ 558 1. EU—CJEU—Should reputation and distinctive character be taken into account when assessing the similarity between two marks? .......................... 558 2. EU—CJEU—Does conceptual dissimilarity counteract phonetic and visual similarity in the global assessment of confusion? ...............................