NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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