0370 270 6000

The challenges of registering colour marks

20 August 2010

In the recent case of X-technology Swiss GmbH v OHIM the EU General Court upheld an OHIM Board of Appeal decision rejecting a Community Trade Mark Application for a mark consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock. The mark had no distinctive character and was thus incapable of registration.

For a trade mark to have distinctive character it must serve to identify the goods or services in connection with which it is to be registered as originating from one particular origin. Distinctive character is assessed by reference to:

  • the goods or services covered by the application
  • how those goods or services are perceived by the relevant public

The Court held that the perception of the relevant public is influenced by the nature of the mark itself and, here, the mark (being orange colouring on a sock toe) was an intrinsic and indistinguishable part of the goods themselves. Given this, consumers would only see the mark as distinctive where it departs significantly from the norms or customs of the sector; in this case the mark did not.

The Court also applied existing case law on the distinctiveness of colour marks and the capacity of colours and combinations of colours to identify commercial origin. It was held that the colour orange was commonly applied in the hosiery sector in combination with other colours. The fact that the goods were directed at the "technical" or "functional" hosiery market was irrelevant as only the general category of "socks" and "hosiery" covered in the application was relevant.

Unlike with certain items of clothing or footwear, socks are every day, relatively low priced goods and the relevant public pays a low level of attention to such goods when making their purchasing decision. Whilst consumers are generally attentive when choosing articles of clothing and footwear, this is not applicable to articles of hosiery which are not normally tried on prior to purchase. In these circumstances, the applicant needed to demonstrate that the mark had intrinsic distinctive character. No evidence to this effect was submitted. The OHIM Board of Appeal decision was upheld that the mark would be perceived either as decoration or as a functional element connected with the reinforcement of the toe, not an indication of origin and so incapable of registration.

Whilst not ground breaking, this case serves as a useful reminder that colour marks are rarely intrinsically distinctive. For an application for a colour mark to succeed, you need to show firm evidence that the colour in question comprising the mark is seen by the relevant public as an indication of commercial origin.

Focus on...

Blogs

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View

Blogs

Right to Work Checks: Changes from 6 April 2022

From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).

View

Blogs

Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?

In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.

View

Blogs

Sky’s overly broad trade marks narrowed as found partially invalid for bad faith

Lord Justice Arnold has applied the guidance of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to the evidence before him, in the long standing trade mark dispute between Sky and Skykick.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up