Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

The Coca-Cola Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) - (24 Feb 2016)

Coca Cola’s bottles not recognisable enough

Intellectual Property Rights

The General Court of the European Court of Justice dismissed an application by Coca Cola for the registration of its three-dimensional sign (pictured) for its bottles. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) had previously rejected Coca Cola’s application in 2014, not accepting arguments that Coca Cola’s ‘contour bottle without fluting’ had evolved naturally into the ‘contour bottle with fluting’ and which the relevant public associated with its famous iconic bottle.

The Court agreed with OHIM’s assessment that the bottle had not acquired distinctive character throughout the European Union in respect of a significant part of the relevant public. From surveys conducted in 10 Member States it emerged that only 48 per cent of people in Poland and 79 per cent in Spain recognised the bottle as belonging to Coca Cola. The Court was disdainful towards the surveys, which aside from being less than conclusive, failed to cover 17 other Member States. It refused extrapolating conclusions from the surveys conducted in a handful of Member States over the whole of the Union. It also discounted sales figures and advertising revenue data for having little probative value, and being littered with inconsistencies.

Tags : COCA COLA   BOTTLE   TRADE MARK   RELEVANT PUBLIC  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved