Fissler GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-423/18)

Judgment of 7 May 2019

law://eu/cjeu/2018/t-423-18/para_14@2026-11-13

14In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law that the fact that the relevant public is a specialist one cannot have a decisive influence on the legal criteria used to assess the distinctive character of a sign. Although it is true that the level of attention of the relevant specialist public is, by definition, higher than that of the average consumer, it does not necessarily follow that a weaker distinctive character of a sign is sufficient where the relevant public is specialist. The principle deriving from settled case-law, namely that, in order to assess whether or not a trade mark has any distinctive character, the overall impression given by it must be considered, might be undermined if the distinctiveness threshold of a sign depended generally on the degree of specialisation of the relevant public (see judgment of 12 July 2012, Smart Technologies v OHIM, C‑311/11 P, EU:C:2012:460, paragraphs 48 to 50 and the case-law cited). The same is true of the assessment of the descriptiveness of a sign.

Fissler GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-423/18)

History · 1 version

Connections