In fashion, Italian luxury fashion brandPRADAthe "Signature triangle" It's an unmistakable symbol, At leastPRADAThat's the claim. however, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Second board of appeal (Hereafter called "council" ) in2023years12month19It was partially rejected in the ruling on TuesdayPRADAAn application to register the triangle logo on a variety of goods and services.

2022years4month, PRADAApply for a black and white triangle pattern (See chart below) Register as a trademark, It covers a wide range of goods and services, Refers to the various categories of the Nice classification, From non-medical cosmetics (The first3class) , Precious metal (The first14class) , Leather goods (The first18class) , furniture (The first20class) , textile (The first24class) , Clothing and footwear (The first25class) To advertising and business management (The first35class) vary.

2022years6month, EUIPOOn the basis of "Eu trademark regulation (EUTMR) " The first7 (1) (b) The article raised objections to some of the goods and services covered by the application. The board considers that, The trademark applied for does not have any distinctiveness, Because the average consumer would think that this very simple pattern is just a decorative design, Very common on the goods covered by the application and their packaging.

PRADAAn appeal was lodged against the decision, Some reasons supporting the registration application are given.

PRADAAccording to, A competitive pattern is a very special pattern, It consists of groups of elements that repeat regularly, The overall impression left on the consumer is sufficiently significant.

About simplicity of design, PRADAconsider, Despite design "easy" or "Normal" , As long as it can identify the goods applying for registration and／Or service, Can show that these goods and／Or the service comes from a particular company, And thus combine these goods with／Or services with the goods and services of other competing companies／Or service to distinguish, The design can be registered as a trademark. In addition, EUIPOAn application for trademark registration consisting of a similar inverted isosceles triangle has been accepted.

The company also argues, The registrability of the mark must be combined with each item rejected for inclusion and／Or service, Or at least each category of goods and／Or services are reviewed, This case did not do so, Practices are bound to vary from industry to industry, Hence the censor's "generality" The conclusion is unfounded. It is common practice in the fashion industry to use patterns as an indication of a product's origin.

The committee first reminds, The refusal to register a trademark without distinguishing features is based on the public interest related to the basic function of the trademark: Ensure that consumers can clearly identify the source of goods or services.

Make the logo distinctive, It must be able to identify the product, And differentiate the products from those of other companies. This assessment of significance takes into account the perceptions of the average consumer, The average consumer's views vary depending on the type of good or service. In terms of three-dimensional trademarks, Public perception may be different. In this regard, The committee reminded, The average consumer cannot rely on the shape or packaging of the product alone, Making inferences about the origin of the product without considering any graphic or textual elements. In addition, Only signs that deviate significantly from relevant industry norms or customs do not lack significant characteristics.

In the present case, The committee considers that, PRADAThe pattern is simple and similar to traditional patterns, There is no significant difference with industry norms. The triangular pattern involved is a basic one, Common figurative patterns, Because it's made up of triangles of the same size in regular succession, These triangles are juxtaposed and distinguished by the alternate use of different colors. therefore, Compared to the traditional expression of triangular patterns, There is no noticeable change in the pattern.

With regard toPRADAThe examiner proposed by the company did not distinguish between the argument that the trademark to be applied for is distinctive for different goods and services, The committee noted that, As far as all related goods are concerned, PRADAThe pattern can be overlaid on its surface, Thus consistent with the appearance of the goods, The relevant public will see it as an attractive detail of the relevant product, Or a common decorative element, Rather than a sign of the commercial origin of the goods.

The committee rejected itPRADAAnother argument for the company, The pattern is very special, Therefore, it can be regarded as significant. The grounds for the rejection are shown by the examples presented by the trademark Examiner, Products sold online use very similar patterns, Which means the pattern doesn't "peculiar" or "uncommon" , Not enough as a source marker.

finally, The committee concluded that, Due to the low inherent significance of the logo, There are no linguistic or other elements that make the pattern considered a sign of commercial origin, therefore, Simply arranged in a pattern, triangles form an overall impression for all concerned goods and services, None of them have any significance. therefore, PRADAThe appeal was rejected. (Be compiled fromintellectual-property-helpdesk. ec. europa. eu)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, 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 us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.