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!
Want to speak
Complete the form below and we’ll call you back free of charge.