14-06-2017
Register slogans as community trademarks after
Vorsprung durch Technik? Yes we can!
Register slogans as community trademarks after Vorsprung durch Technik?
Yes we can!
donderdag, 1 juli 2010
The recent Audi decision provides trademark owners with useful guidance over the development of slogans.
That slogans could be registered as community trademarks (CTMs) has never been seriously doubted or
disputed from a principle point of view. However, since slogans are neither explictly included in, nor excluded
from, the trademark definition used in the Community Trademark Regulation (207/2009), successful
registration of a slogan as a CTM depends on fitting it into the definitions laid out in Article 4 of the regulation
and negotiating the hurdles of Article 7, which lays down the absolute grounds for refusal of a CTM
application by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).
Since this is a question of interpretation it is no surprise that slogans – just like other signs which are required
to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings – have given rise to
some captivating litigation over the years. However, the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union
in Audi AG v OHIM (Case C-398/08) concerning the registration of Audi’s slogan ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’
as a CTM (for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35- 43 and 45 of the Nice Classification)
should now be regarded as the highlight of this type of litigation. It took Audi well over seven years to
convince the authorities that its slogan was entitled to registration and trademark protection, with the company
finally succeeding at the ECJ (the application was filed at OHIM on January 30 2003).
The reason why Audi was so persistent (it had already succeeded in an earlier registration of ‘Vorsprung durch
Technik’ as a CTM (No 621086) for goods in Class 12 (cars), its core business) is not disclosed, but it seems
that Audi felt it appropriate to try to extend the protection for its slogan to a broader range of goods and
services with an additional CTM application. This might, of course, also have something to do with third
parties using a similar slogan for goods and services not identical or similar to those covered by Audi’s earlier ‘
Vorsprung durch Technik’ CTM for cars. McDonalds, for example, parodied the slogan in ‘Vorsprung durch
Tomate’ (to stress the presence of tomatoes in its burgers). Whatever the reason, the fundamental issue at the
heart of Audi is the capacity of a slogan, as such, to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from
those of other undertakings.
Contrary to what the examiner of OHIM, its board of appeal and the Court of First Instance (CFI) had
previously held, the ECJ considered that Vorsprung durch Technik could have such an inherent capacity for all
the goods and services covered by the application. It consigned to the dustbin the CFI’s finding that Vorsprung
durch Technik does not contain elements likely to enable the relevant public to remember the expression easily
and immediately as a distinctive mark for the goods and services covered, over and above its obvious
promotional meaning. The ECJ also reaffirmed that the criteria for the assessment of distinctive character are
https://www.banning.nl:443/publicaties/register-slogans-ascommunity-trademarks-after-vorsprung-durch-technik-yes-wecan/
1/3
14-06-2017
Register slogans as community trademarks after
Vorsprung durch Technik? Yes we can!
the same for other categories of mark (referring to its decision in OHIM v Erpo Möbelwerk (Case C-64/02,
October 21 2004) concerning the slogan ‘Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit’). In this regard, any specific
difficulties in establishing the distinctiveness of slogans, because of their very nature (difficulties which the
ECJ allows to be taken into account), do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating
from the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the ECJ’s existing case law (see Procter & Gamble v
OHIM (Case C-473/01 P and C-474/01, April 30 2004), OHIM v Erpo Möbelwerk, Henkel v OHIM (Case C144/06, October 4 2007), Eurohypo v OHIM (Case C-304/06, May 8 2008) and Storck v OHIM (Case C-25/05,
June 22 2006)).
Given this, one can not, therefore, require that a slogan be easily and immediately perceived by the relevant
public as a distinctive sign for the goods and services in order to be registrable as a trademark. The ECJ adds
this specific requirement to two other requirements that it has already declared out of order: “imaginativeness”
and “conceptual tension which would create surprise and so make a striking impression” (see OHIM v Erpo
and SAT.1 v OHIM (Case C-392/02, September 16 2004)). In other words, the registration of slogans as a
trademark is safeguarded from specific requirements other than those laid down in, and confirmed by, ECJ
case law. Of course, this is also helpful with regard to the fight against requirements without merit that slip into
the registration process.
But the ECJ’s decision goes far beyond this attempt to create a level playing field. It states, beyond doubt, that
the mere fact that a slogan is perceived by the relevant public as a promotional formula, and that because of its
laudatory nature, it could in principle be used by other undertakings, is not in itself sufficient to support a
conclusion that the slogan is devoid of distinctive character. This follows sound reasoning. A slogan can be
perceived by the public is both promotional and as an indication of the commercial origin of good or services.
The one does not exclude the other.
That said, the ECJ concludes with a remark which at first glance seems pointless to mention, but which on
closer inspection provides good guidance when developing slogans that can be trademarks: a slogan that has a
number of meanings, constitutes a play on words and/or is imaginative, surprising and unexpected, and is in
that way easy to remember, is most likely to endow that slogan with distinctive character. Of course, that
ultimately depends on the perception of the public, but with Vorsprung durch Technik the ECJ has created a
promising playground for practice. Can we play in it? Yes we can!
GERELATEERD AAN
IE & IT
https://www.banning.nl:443/publicaties/register-slogans-ascommunity-trademarks-after-vorsprung-durch-technik-yes-wecan/
2/3
14-06-2017
Register slogans as community trademarks after
Vorsprung durch Technik? Yes we can!
BEZOEKADRES
POSTADRES
Statenlaan 55
5223 LA 's-Hertogenbosch
Postbus 1714
5200 BT 's-Hertogenbosch
T
F
E
W
+31 73 692 77 77
+31 73 692 77 89
[email protected]
www.banning.nl
https://www.banning.nl:443/publicaties/register-slogans-ascommunity-trademarks-after-vorsprung-durch-technik-yes-wecan/
3/3