Doublemint - A Representative To Chew Over

It's a bumper IP solar daytime for the ECJ. The courtroom has ruled on the registrability of DOUBLEMINT inwards OHIM v Wrigley. The CFI had previously said that DOUBLEMINT was registrable for chewing paste because it was non exclusively descriptive of the applicant's goods since it had at to the lowest degree 2 possible meanings: this production contains 2 types of mint or this production contains twice the green amount of mint. However, the ECJ has said that the CFI applied the incorrect exam to determining whether the rank is descriptive nether Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94. Instead of looking at whether the rank is exclusively descriptive, the courtroom should convey looked at:

"whether the discussion at number was capable of existence used yesteryear other economical operators to designate a feature of their goods too services".

The focus of Article 7(1)(c) should locomote on whether, inwards the populace interest, the rank should rest freely available for other traders to use. To this end, "A sign must hence locomote refused registration nether that provision if at to the lowest degree i of its possible meanings designates a feature of the goods or services concerned" (emphaisis added yesteryear the IPKat).

Therefore, the illustration was referred dorsum to the CFI too so that it tin move apply these principles.

notes that this judgment focuses on the deport on that the registration of a rank volition convey inwards the futurity on other traders, should they produce upwards one's heed at about phase that they desire to locomote it too on how the rank could locomote used, rather than concentrating on the trend that the applicant is using the rank now. However, the DOUBLEMINT rank is well-nigh sure enough safe, whatsoever the effect of this illustration before the CFI, since Wrigley has acquired distinctive grapheme inwards the rank through use. (Acquired distinctiveness was non at number inwards this case, exactly inherent distinctiveness was). likewise points out that the ECJ did non conduct address the deport on that this illustration has on its before BABY-DRY decision.