Home > Reading Room > Trade Marks Part 2 Geographical places

Trade Marks Part 2 Geographical places

Written by Michael Coyle on 17 October 2014

« Return to Reading Room

An application for SAVILE ROW would be refused on the grounds that the general public would assume that the goods/services emanated from or were associated with Savile Row, and this would cause deception.

Equally CHANCERY would be declined in respect of legal services and ASCOT for racing goods/services. Contrast this with the German town CLOPPENBURG, where it was ruled that the registrability of a geographic name depended on whether the locality was known to the relevant consumers (Peek & Cloppenburg KG v OHIM, Case T-379/03, 25 October 2005)

So dont be a donut and think distinctive!

If you'd like to know more about this article please send an email to Michael Coyle quoting the article title and any questions you might have, alternatively call the office number on 02380 235 979 or send an enquiry through our contact form.

Want to speak
to someone?

Complete the form below and we’ll call you back free of charge.

Visual Captcha