EU General Court rejects Converse TM appeal
American shoe company Converse has failed to convince the EU General Court that its trademark should not be invalidated.
Today, March 29, the General Court affirmed the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) decision to annul a 3D trademark.
Converse, named as All Star in the suit, obtained registration for a 3D mark, depicting the sole of a shoe, in January 2010. The trademark covered class 17 (rubber and rubber articles); 25 (footwear and their parts and fittings); and class 35 (retail services and online retail sale services of footwear).
One year later, French retailer Carrefour applied for the invalidity of the trademark, an application which was granted by the EUIPO’s Cancellation Division in June 2013.
Converse appealed against the decision, arguing that the Cancellation Division had erred in annulling the contested mark completely when Carrefour’s application concerned only goods in class 35.
In response, the Cancellation Division revised its decision, annulling the contested mark for goods in class 25 and maintaining it for goods and services in class 17 and 35.
However, Converse then filed a second appeal against the decision.
In June 2017, the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal dismissed Converse’s appeal and confirmed the annulment for class 25 goods.
Again, Converse appealed against the decision, arguing that the appeal board had misinterpreted various provisions in seven different pleas.
In its fourth plea, Converse claimed the appeal board adopted the contested decision in breach of the principle of good administration and the right to be heard within a reasonable time.
“Although the applicant refers generally to 'a miscarriage of justice' which [it] allegedly suffered as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings, [it] does not put forward any concrete argument capable of showing that the exercise of [its] rights of defence could have been affected by the excessive length of the administrative procedure, assuming that irregularity was established,” said the court.
Converse also claimed that the board had erred in its assessment of distinctive character, an argument the General Court dismissed.
“It must be concluded that the contested mark does not differ significantly from the norm or habits of the sector concerned and that, consequently, it is not capable of fulfilling its essential function of identification of the origin of the products covered by it,” added the court.
The General Court dismissed the action and ordered Converse to pay the costs.
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:
Singapore to open GI registry for worldwide applications
