Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2015 in Review Guy Heath—Nabarro LLP London, United Kingdom with Georg Jahn—Noerr LLP Munich, Germany Anne Marie Verschuur—NautaDutilh Amsterdam, The Netherlands Jordi Güell—Curell Suñol Barcelona, Spain Pier Luigi Roncaglia—Studio Legale SIB Florence, Italy Meriem Loudiyi—INLEX Paris, France Ivo Rungg—Binder Grösswang Vienna, Austria Nina Ringen—Rønne & Lundgren Copenhagen, Denmark Johan Norderyd—Lindahl Malmö, Sweden Tanguy de Haan—NautaDutilh Brussels, Belgium March–April, 2016 Vol. 106 No. 2 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 Telephone: +1 (212) 768-9887 email: [email protected] Facsimile: +1 (212) 768-7796 OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION RONALD VAN TUIJL .................................................................................................................. President JOSEPH FERRETTI ...........................................................................................................President Elect TISH L. BERARD .............................................................................................................. Vice President DAVID LOSSIGNOL ........................................................................................................... Vice President AYALA DEUTSCH ..................................................................................................................... Treasurer TIKI DARE ............................................................................................................................... Secretary MAURY TEPPER ........................................................................................................................ Counsel ETIENNE SANZ DE ACEDO ................................................................................... Chief Executive Officer The Trademark Reporter Committee EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CHAIR KATHLEEN E. MCCARTHY Senior Editors NEIL WILKOF JESSICA ELLIOTT CARDON RUTH CORBIN GLENN MITCHELL ELISABETH KASZNAR FEKETE RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN FABRIZIO MIAZZETTO PAMELA CHESTEK CHIKAKO MORI Staff Editor Staff Editor BEVERLY HARRIS JOEL L. BROMBERG Editors TSAN ABRAHAMSON ANN LAMPORT HAMMITTE AMANDA NYE MARIA BARATTA GUY HEATH JENIFER DEWOLF PAINE MARTIN J. BERAN ANNE HIARING HOCKING JEREMY B. PENNANT DANIEL R. BERESKIN JANET L. HOFFMAN NEAL PLATT STEFANIA BERGIA GANG HU MICHIEL RIJSDIJK LANNING BRYER DOMINIC HUI RACHEL RUDENSKY SHELDON BURSHTEIN AHMAD HUSSEIN JEREMY SCHACHTER IRENE CALBOLI BRUCE ISAACSON MATTHEW R. SCHANTZ ROBERT CAMERON AGLIKA IVANOVA MARTIN SCHWIMMER JANE F. COLLEN E. DEBORAH JAY JENNIFER SICKLER THEODORE H. DAVIS JR. FENGTAO JIANG AARON SILVERSTEIN ANNE DESMOUSSEAUX HE JING ALEX SIMONSON MEGHAN DILLON MARIA JOSE JIRON GIULIO ENRICO SIRONI THOMAS F. DUNN SIEGRUN D. KANE DEBBIE SKLAR SCOT DUVALL SUSAN J. KERI WENDI E. SLOANE CLAUS M. ECKHARTT MIKE KEYES JERRE B. SWANN, JR. SHEJA EHTESHAM ROLAND KUNZE SCOTT THOMPSON KAREN L. ELBURG JOI MICHELLE LAKES CHINASA UWANNA MATTHEW EZELL SCOTT LEBSON ANJALI VALSANGKAR NEMESIO FERNANDEZ-PACHECO NELS LIPPERT EDWARD E. VASSALLO SALVADOR FERRANDIS MARCUS LUEPKE MARTIN VIEFHUES ALFRED FRAWLEY VINCENT MARTELL CHARLES WEBSTER ALEX GARENS J. THOMAS MCCARTHY JORDAN WEINSTEIN ALEXANDRA GEORGE NANCY A. MILLER JOHN L. WELCH DANIEL GLAZER JOHN M. MURPHY JOSEPH WELCH ANDREW J. GRAY IV PAUL MUSSELL BRYAN K. WHEELOCK LESLEY MCCALL GROSSBERG SADAF NAKHAEI JOSEPH YANG SAURABH NANDREKAR Advisory Board MILES J. ALEXANDER ROBERT M. KUNSTADT ROBERT L. RASKOPF WILLIAM M. BORCHARD THEODORE C. MAX PASQUALE A. RAZZANO CLIFFORD W. BROWNING JONATHAN MOSKIN SUSAN REISS LANNING G. BRYER VINCENT N. PALLADINO PIER LUIGI RONCAGLIA SANDRA EDELMAN JOHN B. PEGRAM HOWARD J. SHIRE ANTHONY L. FLETCHER ALLAN S. PILSON JERRE B. SWANN, SR. ARTHUR J. GREENBAUM STEVEN M. WEINBERG The views expressed in The Trademark Reporter are those of the individual authors. The Trademark Reporter (ISSN 0041-056X) is published electronically six times a year by the International Trademark Association, 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 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® (USPS 636-080) Copyright 2016, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved Vol. 106 March–April, 2016 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL REVIEW OF EU TRADEMARK LAW 2015 in Review I. Introduction ......................................................................... 420 A. About this Review ............................................................ 420 B. Organization of Material in this Review ......................... 420 C. Legislative Change and Terminology ............................. 421 II. Specification of Goods and Services .................................... 421 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 421 B. Legal Texts ...................................................................... 422 C. Cases ................................................................................ 422 1. EU—General Court—Classification—Retail Services—Should a CTM registered for the Class 35 class heading, and which makes no reference to retail services, nevertheless be considered to have been validly registered in relation to retail services? ..................................................................... 422 III. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration, and for Cancellation ......................................................................... 428 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 428 B. Legal Texts ...................................................................... 429 C. Cases ................................................................................ 431 ii Vol. 106 TMR 1. Belgium—Brussels Court of Appeal— Registrability—Distinctiveness—Can a superlative be registered as a trademark? ................................... 431 2. Austria—Austrian Supreme Court—Absolute Grounds—Relevant Consumer—Should a mark for consumer goods be refused registration on the basis of descriptive connotations perceived only by trade professionals? ................................................... 432 3. EU—General Court—Article 7(1)(b)—Slogan Marks—What kind of multiplicity of meaning is sufficient to invest a slogan with a distinctive character? ................................................................... 433 4. EU—General Court—Slogan Marks—Can the self- contradictory nature of a phrase confer distinctiveness upon it? ............................................. 435 5. EU—CJEU—Absolute grounds—When is it problematic to register a distinctive acronym or initialism in combination with the phrase for which it stands? ......................................................... 437 6. EU—France—Supreme Court—Distinctiveness— Does a slogan celebrating love of a place serve a trademark function? .................................................. 439 7. EU—CJEU—Distinctiveness—three-dimensional signs—Who bears the burden of proof in a cancellation case alleging that a shape mark represents no more than the sum of its (non- distinctive) parts? ...................................................... 440 8. EU—General Court—Absolute grounds/shape marks—Can professional reviews attesting to the distinctive quality of a car’s design help overcome objections to the distinctiveness (as a trademark) of the car’s shape? ...................................................... 444 9. EU—General Court—Absolute grounds—Stripes case—no distinctive character—Can distinctiveness objections to a simple geometric pattern be overcome on the basis that market practice in the sector has educated consumers to regard such patterns as having trademark significance? ............................................................... 447 Vol. 106 TMR iii 10. EU—General Court—Absolute grounds/shape marks—For what kinds of product may OHIM (EUIPO) assert that a certain shape is normal and non-distinctive, based merely on general practical experience? ................................................................. 449 11. EU—General Court—Marks Lacking Distinctive Character—To what extent can distinctiveness objections typically leveled at three-dimension shape marks also be applied to two-dimensional figurative marks representing fabric patterns? ........ 452 12. EU—CJEU—Shape Marks—Article 3(1)(e)— Article 3(3)—Does a claim to acquired distinctiveness for a shape mark require the trademark applicant to demonstrate that the relevant public rely on the shape as an indication of trade origin? ........................................................... 456 13. EU—General Court—Color Marks—Does a difficulty in clearly perceiving or identifying the nature of a graphical feature prevent it from conferring distinctiveness on a mark? ....................... 462 14. EU—Germany—German Federal Supreme Court—What level of acquired distinctiveness is necessary to establish the validity of the registration of a simple color mark for consumer products? .................................................................... 464 15. EU—General Court—Absolute Grounds—Interface with Certification and Collective Marks—Can the public’s perception of a mark as fulfilling the role of a certification mark be relied on to