General Court (Ninth Chamber), 12 May 2016, in case T‑749/14 (Peter Chung-Yuan Chang, v EUIPO and BSH Hausgeräte GmbH)
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Descriptive character – word mark AROMA
The mere fact that a mark is perceived by the relevant public as a promotional formula capable, because of its laudatory nature is not in itself sufficient to support the conclusion that that mark is devoid of distinctive character. The goods falling within Classes 7 and 11 covered by the mark AROMA consist, for the main part, of electrical cooking utensils; those goods do not give off any particular aroma, with the result that the nature or essential characteristics of the goods at issue have no direct relationship with the sign.
It follows that the sign AROMA is not descriptive of the way the goods at issue function, nor their intended use or their characteristic, so the sign AROMA does not fall under the prohibition of Article 7(1)(b) and (c)
That mark could even be regarded as demonstrating a certain degree of originality, since the term ‘aroma’ is not normally used in such a context and requires interpretation by the relevant public or a cognitive process to be set off in their minds to enable them to arrive at a conclusion as to the relationship, which is only remotely evocative, between the mark applied for and the goods covered.
categoria:European Case Law