case comment - ITMA
case comment - ITMA
case comment - ITMA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CASE COMMENT<br />
Nick Boydell<br />
Golden Toast eV filed a Community<br />
Trade Mark application for<br />
registration of the word mark Golden<br />
Toast in relation to, amongst others,<br />
goods in class 11 for electrical<br />
household goods and baking<br />
machines and goods in class 30<br />
including bread and other bakery<br />
goods, in particular for toasting or<br />
self baking.<br />
The application was partially rejected<br />
by the Examiner in relation to the<br />
goods specified above under Articles<br />
7(1) (b) and (c) and 7(2) of Council<br />
Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (formerly<br />
Council Regulation (EC) 40/94) on<br />
the grounds that the mark was<br />
descriptive and lacked distinctive<br />
character in relation to those goods.<br />
This decision was approved by the<br />
OHIM Board of Appeal. In particular,<br />
the BoA found that the relevant<br />
public would consider the mark to<br />
mean that the relevant goods were<br />
designed for toasting and the end<br />
product would be “golden”, ie<br />
perfectly browned.<br />
Appeal to the GC<br />
Golden Toast eV put the following<br />
arguments to the GC:<br />
CASE COMMENT<br />
Golden Toast registration<br />
goes up in smoke after<br />
‘descriptive’ decision<br />
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast eV v OHIM, GC T-163/08, 19 May 2010.<br />
Review based on German-language judgment. The General<br />
Court recently rejected an appeal by Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden<br />
Toast eV against OHIM’s partial refusal to register the word<br />
mark Golden Toast on the ground that it was descriptive.<br />
Nick Boydell reports...<br />
The BoA had given no reason for<br />
its finding that the mark lacked<br />
distinctive character;<br />
The BoA had not tested whether<br />
the mark is in fact descriptive. In<br />
reality the phrase “golden toast”<br />
was not used in a descriptive<br />
manner. The results of an internet<br />
search were submitted in support<br />
of this.<br />
The fact that each element of the<br />
mark could be seen as descriptive<br />
did not mean that the mark was<br />
descriptive as a whole. The<br />
relevant public would not see<br />
a link between the element<br />
“Golden” and the goods. In<br />
particular, the goods as sold were<br />
raw and Golden Toast eV disputed<br />
the relevancy of the Board of<br />
Appeal’s assumption that the<br />
relevant public would wish their<br />
baking machines to bake bread<br />
that was “golden”.<br />
The mark had been registered in<br />
Germany and has been used in<br />
that jurisdiction for 45 years. For<br />
the German public, the mark<br />
was not descriptive and was an<br />
adequate guarantee of origin<br />
of the goods.<br />
The GC’s findings<br />
The GC upheld the BoA’s finding that<br />
the relevant public was the general<br />
normally informed and rational<br />
consumers of the European Union.<br />
This was not disputed by Golden<br />
Toast eV.<br />
The GC found that Golden Toast eV<br />
had not successfully shown that the<br />
BoA had made a mistake in law in<br />
finding that the mark was descriptive.<br />
The GC found that both an Englishspeaking<br />
and a German-speaking<br />
public would understand “golden” to<br />
be a way of describing toasted bakery<br />
goods that are perfectly browned.<br />
The element “golden” was thus an<br />
aspirational description of the<br />
relevant goods, including both bakery<br />
goods and baking machines. The<br />
submission that the bakery goods<br />
were sold raw did not change this<br />
conclusion as the goods were<br />
intended for toasting.<br />
In addition, Golden Toast eV did not<br />
dispute the finding of descriptiveness<br />
in relation to the element “Toast”. It<br />
thus followed that both elements of<br />
the mark were descriptive. However,<br />
the GC stated that showing that each<br />
18 <strong>ITMA</strong> Review July/August 2010