Aldi’s ‘Le Coq de France’ TM application dismissed
Supermarket chain Aldi has been unsuccessful in registering and appealing an opposition to its ‘Le Coq de France’ trademark.
The decision was handed down by the European General Court today, February 1.
Germany-based Aldi applied for the trademark, covering food items such as milk, meat, fruit and vegetables, and jam in May 2012.
In September 2012, German grocery store Schwamm & Cie opposed the application, citing the applied-for mark’s similarity to Schwamm’s ‘Le Coq’ figurative mark. The earlier mark also covers meats, as well as bakery goods and confectionery items.
Schwamm’s opposition was directed against all of the goods covered in Aldi’s applied-for trademark.
In July 2015, the EU Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) Opposition Division upheld the opposition, and said that there was a likelihood of confusion due to the name, products and visual similarity of the trademark.
Aldi filed an appeal against the decision later that year, but the appeal was dismissed by the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal in June 2016.
The supermarket requested to change the trademark application, reducing the trademark’s coverage from ‘milk and milk products’ to ‘cheese’.
Aldi asked the General Court to annul the contested decision and order the EUIPO to pay the costs.
The court said that the food items covered by the applied-for trademark were similar to that of Schwamm’s mark.
It also agreed with the EUIPO that Aldi did not submit any evidence that the average German-speaking public would perceive the words ‘le’ and ‘coq’ as generic terms used in the food industry. ‘Le coq’ translates to “the rooster” in English.
Whereas Aldi argued that the dominant characteristic in the applied-for trademark was ‘de France’, the court disagreed and said that the dominant element was ‘Le Coq’.
Upon weighing up the evidence, the General Court ruled that Aldi’s plea must be rejected and that Aldi must pay the costs.
WIPR reported in December last year that Aldi was ordered by the CJEU to prove that its ‘Champagner Sorbet’ does not take advantage of the protected designation of origin for Champagne.
The court said that the product could be taking advantage of champagne’s reputation.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories
US court dismisses 'Inside Out' copyright allegations against Disney
Elvis Presley's estate loses TM dispute to UK brewery
EU General Court rules in favour of Philip Morris on evidence claims
