Conclusion
107.The Trade Mark was validly registered in August 2013; the registration was not contrary to any of the prohibitions to registration contained in art.7(1)(b) to (d).108.If arts.7(3) and 52(2) have no application in law, there is nothing further to be considered.109.Alternatively, if arts.7(3) and 52(2) are engaged, the Trade Mark did designate a geographical origin by 2010, but this was reversed through use in the period between 2011 and August 2013. By 9 August 2013, the date relevant for the application of art.7(3), the Trade Mark was distinctive. It remained distinctive up to 7 March 2016, the date relevant for the application of art.52(2).110.The Trade Mark was and remains validly registered and there are no grounds for its revocation.
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
- Defendant
- Introduction
- The issues
- The law
- Whether use of the mark can be taken into account
- perception that arises in consequence of the use of the mark as a trade mark and thus as a result of the nature and effect of it, which make it capable of distinguishing the product concerned from those of other undertakings
- The necessary territorial extent of acquired distinctive character
- Summary of the law
- A significant proportion of the relevant class of persons
- The average consumer in the present case
- Acquired distinctive character under art.7(3)
- Use of the Trade Mark
- Whether actual knowledge of a geographical place is necessary under art.7(3)
- The messy reality of what relevant persons think
- The evidence
- Mr Mitchell
- Mr Charles
- Mr Rigopoulos
- Mr Malfas
- Summary
- August 2013 to March 2016
- Conclusion