Nice discussion here on non-traditional marks in the EU. Thanks.
- Vincent
Student

thanks a lot for your comment. I think non-traditional (or as some say: non-conventional) marks are certainly facing more difficulties than their conventional counterparts in terms of registration.

I think that due to the very nature of non-conventional marks there will always be a potential conflict between the need for trademark protection on one side and the need to keep a mark free for the trade in order to prevent a illegitimate restriction of competition. This is especially the case for 3D marks (e.g. LEGO). They are always in danger to resemble a generic form or to perform a technical function.

And I can understand that this is often very frustrating for companies who need to secure and expand their branding in todays competitive marketplace. It seems that courts and trademark offices are applying the law quite restrictive (sometimes too restrictive it seems).

These difficulties are reflected in the small number of non-traditional trade marks registered. They are only a tiny fraction compared to traditional trademarks registered.

Hope this helps.

Chris

What does this mean for non-trad marks across Europe?

Using the Lego story as a springboard, I’m working on a story about protection for non-traditional marks in the EU.

A senior corporate counsel said to me: “It seems like non-traditional marks don’t really stand a chance in Europe. They’re rejected by most trademark offices and even OHIM try their best to avoid registering them, see for instance the Bang & Olufsen case re a loud speaker which is clearly distinctive.”

I wondered if you’d concur with the above opinion, in general and if applied specifically to 3D marks. What is the landscape like for non-traditional marks in Europe (at national and Community level)?

Any thoughts would be useful!

Adam Smith
Reporter

World Trademark Review
http://www.WorldTrademarkReview.com
Email: asmith (at) worldtrademarkreview (dot) com