EU General Court rules that ‘Real’ cannot be trademarked
The EU General Court has backed a decision from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) which rejected a trademark application consisting of the word ‘Real’ from a Norwegian food company.
In the decision, handed down yesterday, November 30, the General Court dismissed an appeal from Hanso Holding and ordered it to pay all costs.
The dispute began in April 2015, when Hanso applied for a trademark for the word ‘Real’ surrounded by a black rectangle. It was filed in classes 29, 30 and 31, for meat, coffee and grains respectively.
In October 2015, the EUIPO rejected the application.
“The grounds put forward in support of that refusal were the descriptive character and the lack of distinctive character of the mark applied for in respect of the goods at issue,” yesterday’s ruling read.
In December 2015, Hanso filed an appeal, which was also rejected by the EUIPO Board of Appeal.
“The Board of Appeal considered that the relevant public consists of average consumers and professionals, who have a high level of attention,” the ruling stated.
“The Board of Appeal also stated that, in so far as the word element ‘Real’ of the trademark applied for had a meaning in English, in Romanian, in Portuguese and in Spanish, the relevant public was made up of these nationalities,” it added.
It also stated that the Board of Appeal thought the mark was descriptive and devoid of distinctive character.
Hanso then appealed against this decision, asking the General Court to annul the ruling and for the EUIPO to pay all costs.
However, a three-judge panel ruled in favour of the EUIPO.
“The word element ‘Real’ of the trademark, meaning ‘not artificial or simulated’, directly informs the public that the goods at issue are solely composed of the product and do not contain any artificial additives or supplements or have not been prepared or treated in any way,” the decision said.
It added: “Therefore, contrary to what the applicant claims, the trademark applied for is not merely laudatory, but immediately descriptive of a characteristic of the goods at issue.”
The decision went on to say that the wording “does not draw any distinction by reference to the characteristics” of the goods offered and therefore “does not designate any essential characteristics of the goods”.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
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:
Lawyers disappointed by ‘fiendishly technical’ Red Bull decision
Three suits filed by Apple and Qualcomm on busy day for US court
Unwired Planet confidentiality issues resolved
INTA Berlin 2017: Lego blueprints may be future in 3D printing world
INTA Berlin 2017: Why CSR is crucial for brands
INTA Berlin 2017: Pacari Chocolate founder talks building a sustainable business
