EU court extinguishes ‘iGrill’ TM appeal

The EU General Court today sided with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in refusing a trademark application for US grill manufacturer Weber-Stephen Products.

In May 2016, Weber-Stephen filed a trademark application at the EUIPO for the word sign ‘iGrill’.

The company sought registration in class 9 for goods including computer hardware and software, and class 21 for household, kitchen and barbecue utensils and containers.

However, the EUIPO’s examiner refused to register the mark in February 2017. The EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal upheld the decision in September 2017 because ‘iGrill’ was a newly coined word consisting of the separate elements ‘i’ and ‘Grill’.

The board said that the public would interpret the mark as representing an interactive or intelligent grill and that the goods in question could be used to operate such a grill. As a result, the board said that the applied-for mark was descriptive of those goods.

Weber-Stephen argued before the General Court that the board was wrong to consider that the relevant public would have a high level of attention with the goods at issue in class 9.

The court rejected this plea on the basis that the board was correct to find that the relevant public’s level of attention was not a decisive factor in the assessment of the descriptive character of the applied-for mark.

Weber-Stephen also argued that the ‘i’ element of the applied-for mark does not have any independent meaning. The company added that the mark is not descriptive as the goods at issue are not intelligent grills, nor do they use information technology (IT). According to Weber-Stephen, IT refers to the telecoms and technology sectors.

However, the goods do relate to computer software and hardware, and electronic thermometers. The court claimed that the company did not elaborate on how the goods could not relate to the technology sector, and subsequently dismissed the argument.

In its decision, the court said that the mark must be considered as a whole. As a result, the court said that the mark ‘iGrill’ may mean a “grill having the characteristic of being intelligent or of making use of IT”.

The court said that the goods under class 9 have the characteristic of being able to make grills intelligent by enabling them to make use of IT.

“It should therefore be considered that, in one of the possible meanings, the mark applied for may designate a characteristic of all the goods at issue,” said the court.

Weber-Stephen criticised the board’s finding that the computer hardware at issue was designed for making use of a grill remotely. The company said that contrary to this, the description of that hardware contained no such reference.

The court rejected this argument and said that the computer software in class 9 may be required to operate a device, such as a grill, and make use of IT “without there being a need to determine whether or not that hardware must make it possible for grills to be used remotely”.

Even though Weber-Stephen claimed that the thermometers and utensils covered by the applied-for mark are not intelligent, it does not stop it being perceived as descriptive, ruled the court.

The General Court dismissed Weber-Stephen’s appeal, and the company was ordered to pay the costs.

Want brand protection that counts toward your bottom line? Join WIPR on October 17th for a complimentary webinar.  Find out more here.

Today's top stories

Sony to use blockchain in e-book IP management

Judge dismisses royalties request over ‘Back to the Future’ car

USITC launches investigation into Apple and HTC

Cozen O’Connor hires first-chair patent litigator in Washington, DC