Trade Marks Part 2 Geographical places

An application for SAVILE ROW would be refused on the grounds that the general public would assume that the goods/services emanated from or were associated with Savile Row, and this would cause deception.

Equally CHANCERY would be declined in respect of legal services and ASCOT for racing goods/services. Contrast this with the German town CLOPPENBURG, where it was ruled that the registrability of a geographic name depended on whether the locality was known to the relevant consumers (Peek & Cloppenburg KG v OHIM, Case T-379/03, 25 October 2005)

So dont be a donut and think distinctive!

share this Article

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Recent Articles

25 years of EUIPO trade marks

Last week, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) marked 25 years of receiving trade mark applications, with a total of 2.2 million filings since