The Board ruled that this was not the case with the Saddle Bag. The Board also held that ‘average consumers are not accustomed to presuming the origin of products based on their shape, in the absence of any graphic or textual element.’Īlthough Dior presented photos of other luxury bags in the sector as evidence that their riding saddle shape differed from the norm, the Board reiterated that a ‘mere departure from the norm’ is not sufficient there needs to be a significant difference between the sign applied for and customs of the sector. This widens the pool of relevant consumers beyond the niche category of ‘above average attention’ consumers Dior put forward. The Board stated that the goods in question can be priced very differently. The Board rejected Dior’s submission that their consumers held a higher level of attention than the average consumer. On September 7, 2022, they upheld the initial refusal from the EUIPO examiner in relation to class 18. ![]() The Board of Appeal was not fully convinced. Regarding their eyeglass cases, for which Dior also looked to register its 3D mark, it was argued that their mark was ‘memorable and immediately identifiable as coming from the house of Christian Dior Couture and therefore inherently distinctive’ in the eyeglass case sector. They argued that upon comparing these examples to their never-been-done-before riding saddle shape, their mark ‘clearly diverges from the norm’ and is therefore distinctive in the leather goods sector. The nature of the consumer purchasing bags of that price point would, Dior argued, be able to distinguish the Saddle Bag from Chanel’s newest purse, for example. To that effect, Dior included, as evidence, photos of two luxury bags. Additionally, the Examiner held that the shape of the Saddle Bag has a possible functional element and would be perceived as a ‘practical shape for storing objects,’ further diminishing Dior’s claim that the shape is a distinctive trademark.ĭior appealed this decision, claiming their products are ‘luxurious goods’ and that their consumers would show a ‘high or above average level of attention’ (more than the ‘average’ consumer) when deciding what to purchase. The EUIPO refused the application for goods in both class 18 and class 9, stating the mark did not ‘significantly depart from the norm or customs of the sector,’ and therefore lacked distinctiveness. They added a description of the mark: ‘consisting of the three-dimensional product design of a bag with a curved and sloping base, and a single flap with curved contours covering the opening of the bag.’ In March 2021, Christian Dior Couture attempted to register a 3D mark (shown above left) to cover goods in class 18 – handbags and class 9 – eyeglasses cases. The bags retail for several thousand pounds. ![]() It has recently been reintroduced and has been crowned a ‘decade-defying IT bag’ by Vogue magazine. The Saddle Bag was first designed by John Galliano in 1999. In the recent decision: R 32/2022-2, the Appeal Board of the EUIPO upheld (in-part) the Examiner’s rejection of Dior’s trademark application to register the shape of its Saddle Bag for certain goods, including handbags. Dior is the latest designer to struggle in the pursuit of a 3D shape trademark registration.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |