Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2018 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 and José Monteiro—CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats Paris, France Ivo Rungg and Hellmut Buchroithner—Binder Grösswang Vienna, Austria Nina Ringen and Jonas Lykke Hartvig Nielsen—Lundgrens Copenhagen, Denmark Johan Norderyd and Christian Sundén—Lindahl Stockholm, Sweden Tanguy de Haan—NautaDutilh Brussels, Belgium Alistair Payne—Acuatus Solicitors Dublin, Ireland Ewa Skrzydło-Tefelska—Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak Warsaw, Poland Sophie Wagner-Chartier—Arendt Luxembourg João Paulo Mioludo—CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut Lisbon, Portugal March–April, 2019 Vol. 109 No. 2 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 Telephone: +1 (212) 642-1733 email: [email protected] Facsimile: +1 (212) 768-7796 OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION DAVID LOSSIGNOL ....................................................................................................................... President AYALA DEUTSCH ................................................................................................................ President-Elect TIKI DARE ........................................................................................................................... Vice President ZEEGER VINK ...................................................................................................................... Vice President JOMARIE FREDERICKS ................................................................................................................ Treasurer DANA NORTHCOTT ...................................................................................................................... Secretary ANNA CARBONI ............................................................................................................................. Counsel ETIENNE SANZ DE ACEDO ..................................................................................... Chief Executive Officer The Trademark Reporter Committee EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CHAIR STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF JESSICA ELLIOTT CARDON WILLARD KNOX Senior Editors GLENN MITCHELL RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN FABRIZIO MIAZZETTO PAMELA S. CHESTEK BRYAN K. WHEELOCK ELISABETH KASZNAR FEKETE ANDREW J. GRAY IV Senior Staff Editor BEVERLY HARRIS Editors TARA AARON GUY HEATH MARCOS MERCADO BRUCE W. BABER JANET L. HOFFMAN GEORGE W. MOXON II JOLIEN BARBIER BARRY R. HORWITZ AMANDA NYE MARTIN J. BERAN BRUCE ISAACSON BRANDON M. RESS DANIEL R. BERESKIN E. DEBORAH JAY MICHIEL RIJSDIJK SHELDON BURSHTEIN DANIELLE JOHNSON TOM SCOURFIELD ROBERT H. CAMERON SIEGRUN D. KANE JENNIFER S. SICKLER SUJATA CHAUDHRI PETER J. KAROL RINITA SIRCAR JACQUELINE CHORN J. MICHAEL KEYES RANDEL S. SPRINGER THEODORE H. DAVIS JR. REMCO KLÖTERS SARA SULEIMAN ANNE DESMOUSSEAUX JENNIFER KWON PAUL TACKABERRY MEGHAN DILLON SCOTT J. LEBSON IFEYINWA A. UFONDU KAREN L. ELBURG JOHN LINNEKER MARTIN VIEFHUES MATTHEW EZELL NELS T. LIPPERT VERENA VON BOMHARD DÉSIRÉE FIELDS JOEL G. MACMULL JEFFREY A. WAKOLBINGER ALFRED C. FRAWLEY DOUGLAS N. MASTERS RITA WEEKS LESLEY MCCALL GROSSBERG J. DAVID MAYBERRY JOHN L. WELCH MICHAEL HANDLER BRYCE J. MAYNARD JIAN XU NATHAN HARRIS J. THOMAS MCCARTHY JOSEPH S. YANG Advisory Board MILES J. ALEXANDER ROBERT M. KUNSTADT PASQUALE A. RAZZANO WILLIAM M. BORCHARD THEODORE C. MAX SUSAN REISS CLIFFORD W. BROWNING KATHLEEN E. MCCARTHY PIER LUIGI RONCAGLIA LANNING G. BRYER JONATHAN MOSKIN HOWARD J. SHIRE SANDRA EDELMAN VINCENT N. PALLADINO JERRE B. SWANN, SR. ANTHONY L. FLETCHER JOHN B. PEGRAM STEVEN M. WEINBERG ROBERT L. RASKOPF The views expressed in The Trademark Reporter are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of INTA. 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® Copyright 2019, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved Vol. 109 March–April, 2019 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL REVIEW OF EU TRADEMARK LAW 2018 in Review I. Introduction ........................................................................... 442 A. About this Review ............................................................ 442 B. Legislative Change and Terminology ............................. 443 C. Organization of Material in this Review ........................ 444 II. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration, and for Cancellation ........................................................................... 444 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 444 B. Legal Texts ....................................................................... 446 C. Cases ................................................................................ 448 1. EU—CJEU—Is the concept of “shape” within the meaning of the 2008 TM Directive limited solely to three-dimensional properties of a product, or does it also cover other characteristics such as color? ........................................................................... 448 2. EU—CJEU—Does a mark lack distinctive character where there is inherent probability that it will be used as a surface pattern and be “indissociable” from the appearance of the goods concerned? .................................................................. 450 3. EU—CJEU—Is it necessary for a sign to look striking or unusual to enable the relevant public to identify the origin of the goods or services? ......... 453 ii Vol. 109 TMR 4. EU—CJEU—Do differences in treatment of evidence in absolute grounds analysis between a national IPO and the EUIPO offend the principle of the unitary character of an EUTM? ..................... 455 5. EU—CJEU—Was an EUTM relating to a tourist attraction lacking distinctiveness and descriptive as to the geographical origin and other characteristics of the goods and services? ................ 458 6. EU—CJEU—Should a trademark be refused registration where it consists of a geographical name and a term commonly used to designate facilities or sites in which such products are made? ......................................................................... 461 7. UK—Court of Appeal—Can invalidity arising from issues of clarity and precision in the description of a color mark be fixed by characterizing the marks as part of a series? .......... 463 8. Denmark—Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court—Does the use of a term denote a trademark or a product to the average consumer? .................................................................. 466 9. Germany—Federal Patent Court—In the assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign in a “foreign language” is the relevant perception that of the general public or of “expert” circles in trade? .......................................................................... 467 10. Spain—Appeal Court of Barcelona—Had a sign become a descriptive term, used by the majority of manufacturers to refer to a category of products with a common name? ................................ 469 11. Sweden—Patent and Market Court of Appeal— Should consideration of distinctiveness and descriptiveness each be carried out independently of the other, or simultaneously? ....... 471 12. Germany—Federal Supreme Court—To what extent can the issue of distinctiveness depend upon the likely form of use of the sign? .................... 473 Vol. 109 TMR iii III. Conflict with Earlier Rights—Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration .......................................................... 476 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 476 B. Legal Texts ....................................................................... 478 C. Cases ................................................................................ 483 1. EU—CJEU—Does the analysis of unfair advantage differ as between luxury goods and common mass-consumed foodstuffs with only a peripheral relationship to the reputation of the earlier mark? .............................................................. 483 2. EU—CJEU—In what circumstances can the CJEU set aside decisions of the General Court on the basis of inadequate reasoning? ........................... 485 3. EU—CJEU—When does an appeal to the CJEU on matters of law amount to an inadmissible challenge to the analysis of facts by the General Court? ......................................................................... 489 4. EU—CJEU—What conditions must the owner of an unregistered name establish in order to oppose a third party’s attempt to register a confusingly similar sign for similar services? .......... 491 5. EU—General Court—When might the conceptual meaning of a “celebrity” name counteract the visual and phonetic similarities with an earlier national trademark? ........................ 494 6. Netherlands—Dutch Supreme Court—Does the analysis of a “generalization step” in the assessment of conceptual similarity amount to a new criterion of