The European Union (EU) Court of Justice has affirmed a General Court ruling that confectioner Lindt & Sprüngli, AG cannot register certain three-dimensional shapes, their colored wrappings or ribbons as European Community trademarks. Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Mkt. (Trademarks and Designs), Case No. C-98/11 P (E.C.J., decided May 24, 2012). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 376 of this Update. The mark was sought for the shape of a sitting rabbit with a red ribbon. According to the court, the shape was “typical” for chocolate rabbits and was thus “devoid of any distinctive character.” The court also found that the gold-foil wrapping and small bells and bows embellishments were “common elements in the case of chocolate animals.” The court further ordered the chocolatier to pay the costs of the appeal.
Category Archives European Courts
The Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has agreed, in part, with the European Commission’s challenge to requirements imposed by the Dutch government on contractors providing organic and fair trade products in its automatic coffee machines. EC v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, No. C-368/10 (E.C.J., decided May 10, 2012). According to the Court, government requirements for the award of contracts may be based on environmental or social criteria, but the criteria must be clear and the government must allow proof “that a product satisfies those criteria by all appropriate means.” The Court also held that “all the conditions and detailed rules of the award procedure must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner in the notice or contract documents.” To the extent that the Dutch requirements fell short of these standards, the Court found that the government failed to fulfill its obligations under the award of…
French maize growers and seed companies have reportedly brought an appeal before the nation’s highest court seeking to overturn the French government’s temporary moratorium on a strain of genetically modified (GM) maize. The government action was taken in response to the court’s decision to annul a previous moratorium after finding that it lacked justification. In a joint statement, the plaintiffs said, “This restriction does not rely on any serious scientific element, and maize producers, hit by (insects), sustain real financial damage.” France has also reportedly requested that the European Commission suspend authorization to sow the GM maize, the only one approved for cultivation in the European Union, contending that scientific research shows that it poses “significant risks for the environment.” See Reuters, March 29, 2012.
A U.K.-based public interest charity has filed 54 separate complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) contending that the subject companies, including Cadbury and Pringles, are promoting food products high in sugars, fat or salt to children online. Described by the Children’s Food Campaign (CFC) as a “super complaint,” the case reflects the findings of a report the charity released in December 2011 claiming that food advertisers use brand characters, animations, games, competitions, and videos online and through social media to heavily market junk food to children. It calls for the U.K. government to close a loophole allowing ads for products that cannot be aired during children’s programming to be freely promoted online. According to CFC spokesperson Malcolm Clark, youth marketing standards applicable to TV should be matched online. The existing code apparently states, “marketing communications must not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children.”…
The European General Court (ECG) has determined that the European Commission (EC) erred in removing the antibacterial chemical 2,4,4’-tricihloro2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether (triclosan) from the list of additives that may be used to make plastic materials and other articles that come into contact with foods. Microban Int’l Ltd. v. EC, No. T-262 (ECG, decided October 25, 2011). The court first determined that the EC’s action constituted a regulatory act of direct concern to the applicants, companies that make the additive. The court then ruled both that the EC based its decision on the wrong law and failed to follow the correct procedures in removing triclosan from the list. The court noted that the chemical was previously included on the provisional list of additives which can continue to be used subject to national law on the basis of a European Food Safety Authority determination in 2004 that “although triclosan was a substance for which an…
The European Union Court of Justice has determined that Anheuser-Busch and Czech competitor Budejovicky Budvar may both use the Budweiser trademark in the United Kingdom. Budejovicky Budvar v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., No. C-482/09 (ECJ Sept. 22, 2011). Emphasizing the exceptional circumstances of the case, the court found that because the companies used the marks in good faith for nearly 30 years and because U.K. consumers “are well aware of the difference between the beers of Budvar and those of Anheuser-Busch, since their tastes, prices and get-ups have always been different,” the company that owns the earlier trademark cannot “obtain the cancellation of an identical later trade mark designating identical goods.” The court relied on European law to decide the case and in so doing rejected an advocate general opinion that indicated the issue must be decided as a matter of national law. Information about a related decision appears in Issue 388 of…
Czech and U.S. brewers seeking to market their beers under the name “Bud,” have apparently been at odds since the early 1900s. In the latest installment of the dispute, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has set aside a decision of the Court of First Instance which allowed the Czech brewer to oppose Anheuser-Busch’s registration of “Bud” in Europe. Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Budějovický Budvar, No. C 96-09 (E.C.J., decided March 29, 2011). While the Court of Justice upheld some of the lower court’s rulings, it determined that the lower court erred (i) in the factors it relied on to decide if a “sign,” or trademark, in opposition to a new registration was used in a sufficiently significant manner, and (ii) in holding that the use of the sign in opposition does not necessarily have to occur before the date of the application for new registration. According to the Court…
An advocate general to the European Court of Justice has reportedly issued an opinion stating that French authorities violated European Union (EU) law by suspending the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize on French soil without first asking the European Commission to adopt emergency measures. While such opinions do not bind the court, sources indicate that they are generally adopted. The opinion is apparently expected to affect policies in other member nations, such as Austria and Greece, that turned to the court for guidance after GM crop companies filed suit challenging national restrictions. According to Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, the EU authorized cultivation of the GM seed at issue for animal feed in 1998, and when Monsanto sought reauthorization of the 10-year license in 2007, France outlawed the seed’s cultivation. The country invoked an EU law safeguard provision, adopted in 2004, that provides where “new or additional information” emerging after original…
According to an advocate general opinion, which is not binding on the European Union (EU) Court of Justice, honey that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to the proximity of the hives to experimental GMO maize fields is considered a food produced from a GMO and therefore cannot be marketed unless authorized. Heinz Bablock v. Freistaat Bayern, No. C-442/09 (Advocate General’s Opinion, issued February 9, 2011). The case was referred from a German administrative court considering the claim of a beekeeper who alleged that the state of Bavaria had rendered his apicultural products unfit for marketing or consumption by growing the experimental GMO maize near his hives. The maize DNA was apparently detected in samples of his honey. While the advocate general determined that pollen from GMO maize is “no longer viable and is thus infertile” and as such “cannot be regarded as a GMO,” still its presence renders the…
Having considered the matter for some six years, the General Court of the European Union (EU) has determined that chocolate makers Lindt & Sprüngli AG and August Storck AG cannot register certain three-dimensional shapes, their colored wrappings and ribbons as European Community trademarks. According to the court, chocolate rabbits, reindeer, bells, and mice “cannot be considered to be capable of identifying the commercial origin of the goods they designate.” The court opined that the Lindt & Sprüngli application involved shapes typical of those “presented at certain times of the year, in particular at Easter and Christmas.” The August Storck application was “made up of a combination of standard presentation elements, typical of the goods concerned,” said the court. See General Court of the European Union Press Release No. 124/10, December 17, 2010.
