International trademark association (INTA) Announced in a press release that it had filed a complaint with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Grand Appeal Board (GBoA) An amicus brief was filed, involve Matthias Zirnsack v EUIPO In the case "COVIDIOT" A graphic trademark of the word combined with a clown hat (As shown in the picture below) The registrability issue.

EUIPO The examiner pointed out, "COVIDIOT" The word refers to

(i) Ignore COVID-19 (COVID-19) People who have information about the dangers of the virus;

(ii) People who fail to take government-mandated precautions to protect themselves and others from infection; or

(iii) Stock up on household items, A person who makes such goods inaccessible to others. Based on these findings, The examiner rejected the trademark application, On suspicion of violating accepted moral principles, Therefore belong to "Eu trade mark regulation" (EUTMR) The first 7 article (1) paragraph f The absolute grounds for rejection provided in.

After the applicant filed a complaint, In view of the difference in decisions on legal questions that may affect the outcome of the case, The appeal committee referred the case GBoA, It was asked to clarify whether and to what extent the principle of freedom of expression should be considered EUTMR The first 7 article (1) paragraph f As part of the assessment of grounds for rejection provided for in.

INTA Emphasized in his amicus brief, Legal terms "Moral principle" (And things like that "Public policy" Grounds for rejection) The inherent ambiguity of this case is the core issue, And pointed out that relying on the principle of freedom of speech can not solve the above problems.

INTA A three-step test method is recommended: (1) Verify the public perception of the content of the trademark; (2) Ask whether a majority of the public would find the content contrary to accepted moral principles; (3) If necessary, Strike a balance between the right to free speech and the public interest in prohibiting the registration of trademarks that violate recognized ethical principles.

INTA Said in a briefing, In this case, There is no indication that the majority of the concerned public has a negative opinion.

(Compiled from www. ag-ip-news. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.