John Reddington

La Protection des Formes:

La perspective du Royaume Uni

Staple Inn

London WC1V 7QH

United Kingdom

Tel: 44 20 7242 7005

Fax: 44 20 7242 7115

mail@williamspowell.comCopyright Williams Powell 2012

1. Le cadre législatif

2. Jugements des tribunaux britanniques

3. Exemples

4. Conclusions

Introduction: les conditions de protection de la forme en tant

que marque

Règlement instituant

La Marque communautaire (“RMC”) Trade Marks Act 1994 (“TMA 1993”)

Art 7(1)(b) -Marques dépourvues de S. 3(1)(b)

Art 7(1)(b) - Marques descriptives - S. 3(1)(c)

Art 7(1)(e)(i) - La nature même du produit - S. 3(2)(a) 

Art 7(1)(e)(ii) - résultat technique - S. 3(2)(b)

Art 7(1)(e)(iii) - valeur substantielle - S. 3(2)(c)

Le cadre législatif

Le Work Manual est une synthèse des décisions des cours britanniques et de la jurisprudence de la cour de justice de l’Union Européenne, crée principalement pour informer/conseiller les examinateurs de l’UKIPO. Il a pour but l’application des grands principes au cas par cas.

UKIPO Work Manual

Work Manual :

 

“There is no distinction in law between different types of marks with regard to the test for distinctiveness. This was confirmed by the ECJ in Linde, joined cases C-53/01 to 55/01 … Further, the Court stated that whilst the legal test for distinctiveness is the same for shape marks as for other marks, recognition must be given to the differing perceptions of the average consumer in relation to non-traditional trade marks. In particular, the average consumer may not as readily accept the appearance of the goods themselves as an indication of trade origin. This is because “average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of the products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element”:

Linde, joined cases C-53/01 to 55/01

S. 3(1)(B) – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Work Manual :

 

Proctor & Gamble v OHIM (C-468/01P à C-472/01P

Henkel (C-218/01)

 

“…Only a (shape-of-goods) trade mark which departs significantly from the norms or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin possesses the distinctive character necessary for registration”.

 

 

“The more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of distinctive character.”

S. 3(1)(B) – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Marque Internationale 708442 : décision de L’Appointed Person (15/3/2001)

The tablet is of a basic geometric shape and there

is nothing fanciful about selecting a round tablet

shape for the manufacture of solid detergents.

White is a natural colour for cleaning agents and

I see nothing unusual in the presence of a single

contrasting colour which may, in addition to being

decorative, indicate the presence of different

ingredients such as laundry whiteners or scents.

These features do not make the shape of the tablet

recognisable as a trade mark in the sense that a

typical consumer of the product would deduce that the tablets emanate from a

particular source.

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha’s Application (Chancery Division 8 March 2001)

“The fact that a particular design is eye-catching because it is unusual

or decorative is not enough by itself. At all times the Registry has to ask

whether the design is distinctive as a badge of origin”.

 

“The relevant question is not whether the container would be recognised

on being seen a second time, that is to say, whether it is of memorable

appearance but whether by itself its appearance would convey trade mark

significance to the average consumer.”

 

“…I am prepared to accept that the bottle shape….is both new and visually

distinctive, meaning that it would be recognised as different to other bottles

on the market. That does not mean that it is inherently distinctive in a

trade mark sense”.

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Dualit Ltd’s Trade Mark Application (1999) RPC 890

“……Does the mark have a meaning denoting the origin of the goods?”

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Societe de Produits Nestle SA –v- Unilever plc (18/12/2002)

 

 …in some Member States Trade Mark Registries are accepting unusual shapes without any proof that they have become recognised or served as a trade mark. I regard that as undesirable in principle - it would mean that many new designs could also be registered as a trade mark with a consequential perpetual monopoly. Trade mark registries would in effect be acting as design registries if they accept novel or attractive shapes merely on grounds of novelty or attractiveness. That is not what was intended by the Directive.

 

Jacob J, Nestle –v- Unilever

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Societe de Produits Nestle SA –v- Unilever plc (18/12/2002)

  

“The presumed expectation of a member of the public is that the shape of Viennetta is there to make it attractive to the eye and to indicate its virtue as a delicious ice-cream product. I see no material in the evidence which rebuts that presumed expectation. On thecontrary the way the product has been advertised reinforces that expectation. The advertisements say, and very effectively say, “look  

at this attractive and delicious product and buy it for those attributes.” They do not teach the public to regard the appearance on its own as saying “here is a Walls product” or “here is a product from a unique source.”

 

Jacob J, Nestle –v- Unilever

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

 

Bongrain SA’s Trade Mark [2004] EWCA Civ 1690

 

Work Manual :

 

“….the average consumer would not place any trade mark significance on the “fancy” edging of this basically round cheese. This is because the curves appear decorative and designed to give the individual slices of the cheese an attractive rounded end when the cheese is sliced into sections for sale.”

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Registry Work Manual

 

 

It may be easier to show that a shape has the necessary distinctive character where there is evidence that…. Consumers in the relevant sector do in fact rely upon the appearance of the shape of the product or its packaging as a means of identifying the origin of the product. An example of this is the use of vehicle radiator grilles, which are used by manufacturers as means to differentiate their products, in a trade mark sense. This formed the basis for the CFI’s judgment in the DaimlerChrysler “Jeep” grille case (T-128/01) where it was found that the appearance of the grille did have the necessary capacity to distinguish the product of that vehicle manufacturer from those of other economic operators in that trade.

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

[If] there is evidence, or it is well known, that shapes are a customary means of distinguishing the source of a particular category of goods, shapes which stand out to a lesser degree may be acceptable as trade marks. Examples of such goods include perfume bottles, such as:

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Par contre :

 

“Le niveau de distinctivité requis est plus élevé lorsqu’il est démontré que le secteur concerné est caracterisé par une offre importante de produits aux formes diverses. En effet, l’existence de formes très differentes utilisées pour la promotion de produits d’un même genre exige un surcroit de distinctivité”.

(Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral, Chronique, Fevrier 2003)

  

Objection typique de l’IPO :

 

“The average consumer would see the mark as a container for the goods and would not give it trade mark significance. They would first have to be educated, that the mark belonged to one single undertaking…manufacturers package perfumery, cosmetics and other class 3 goods in a variety of shapes and it is my view that the shape of the container in question does not stand out from the norm in the perfumery cosmetic trade.

S. 3(1)(B) TMA 1994 – Marques dépourvues de caractère

distinctif

Désodorisant

classes 3, 5,

11 & 21

2461961 – Acceptée (2007)

Désodorisant

domestique,

classes

3, 5, 11 & 21

2561236 – Acceptée (2007)

Sal volatile

2549422 – Refusée (2010)

Chewing gum

2553442 - Refusée (2010)

Boissons alcoolisées

2473401 – Acceptée (2007)

Whiskey

2542358 - Refusée (2010)

Parfum

2618123 – Demande (2012)

Boissons non-alcoolisées, mais aussi bouteilles metalliques, en verre ou en plastique

2605604 - Demande

(Décembre 2011)

Yaourt

2610794 – Acceptée (2012)

Boissons alcoolisées

2576787 (Refusée)

Parfum

M1074813 – Refus provisoire (2011)

Parfum

M1116801 - Refus provisoire (2102)

Parfum

10690394 – Marque communautaire acceptée 2012

Produits de soin

de la peau

classes 3, 5 & 16

8987422 – Marque communautaire acceptée

1. En principe l’examen des marques tridimensionelles n’est pas plus stricte que celui des marques verbales,

2. Le consommateur ne s’attend pas à ce que la forme du produit ou de son conditionnnement fonctionne come indication d’origine de la même manière qu’une marque verbale;

3. La gamme de nouveauté visuelle

4. Le secteur

5. Indication d’origine ou message descriptif?

6. Le problème de la distinctivité acquise par l’usage

1. Le cadre législatif

2. Jugements des tribunaux britanniques

3. Exemples

4. Conclusions

Conclusions

1.Considérer la forme dans le contexte du produit et du secteur – ne pas choisir une forme qui peut être considérée comme typique

2.Essayer d’ intégrer d'autres éléments de branding dans la marque tridimensionelle

3. Attirer l’attention du consommateur sur le rôle de la forme comme garantie d’origine

Pour choisir une marque tridimensionelle:

Merci de votre attention!

La Protection des Formes

La perspective du Royaume Uni

Staple Inn

London WC1V 7QH

United Kingdom

Tel: 44 20 7242 7005

Fax: 44 20 7242 7115

mail@williamspowell.comCopyright Williams Powell 2012