Do the ‘conventional’ grounds for refusal also apply to EU certification marks? The Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO says yes

Axel Paul Ringelhann

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 2022, vol. 17, issue 3, 216-218

Abstract: Boards of Appeal of EUIPO, Cases R 1410/2019-5, Manuka honey; R 2110/2019-5, Bio-Mineralwasser I and R 2112/2019-5, bio mineralwasser (fig.) II, 27 October 2021The Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) held that EU certification mark applications are, like any other EU trade mark (EUTM) application, assessed on all general grounds of refusal laid down in Article 7(1) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR). However, when assessing the general grounds of refusal, the specific function of certification must always be kept in mind. In three different cases, the Fifth Board of EUIPO decided that the certification marks Manuka honey and Bio-Mineralwasser (as word and figurative mark) are non-distinctive and descriptive.

Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpac010 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:216-218.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice is currently edited by Eleonora Rosati, Stefano Barazza and Marius Schneider

More articles in Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().