IUEA _ TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN UGANDA

TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN UGANDA
IUEA, FACULTY OF LAW; 2020/2021

LECTURE NOTES: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 1
Objectives
After completing the study of this module you should be able to:
1. define different types of trademarks and other marks;

2. explain the main functions of trademarks and other distinctive signs;
3. describe the difference between registered trademarks and trademarks in use as well as their advantages
and disadvantages;
4. understand the geographical coverage of trademarks protection;
5. understand the economics of trademark registrations and procedures thereof;
6. explain basic requirements for the registration of trademarks and service marks;
7. explain the content of the rights that arise out of a trademark registration and how such rights can be
maintained and enforced.
Contents
CHAPTER 1 : TRADEMARKS AND OTHER MARKS. ...................................................... 2
1.1 What is a Trademark? ................................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Functions of a Trademark................................................................................................................. 4
1.3. Certification marks and Other signs .................................................................................................. 4
2. REGISTRABLE AND UN-REGISTRABLE MARKS .................................................................. 5
2.1 Criteria of Registration ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Protectable subject matter. .......................................................................................................... 6
2.3. Distinctiveness as a pre-requisite. .................................................................................................... 10
2.4. Exclusion from registration: Unregistrable Trademarks................................................................... 15
END OF CHAPTER: ASSIGNMENT 1; ............................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER 3: TRDEMARK REGISTRATION IN UGANDA........................................................... 16
3. PROCEDURE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS IN UGANDA. .................................. 16
ASSIGNMENT 2 ................................................................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER 4: RIGHTS ARISING FROM TRADEMARK REGISTRATION ................................... 35
4.1. What rights arise from Trademark Registration. .............................................................................. 35
4.2 Restriction of the exclusive right of a trademark owner ................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 5. REMOVAL OF THE TRADEMARK FROM THE REGISTER. ................................ 36
CHAPTER 6: INFRINGEMENT AND PASSING OFF .................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 1: TRADEMARKS AND OTHER MARKS.
1.1 What is a Trademark?
Relevant legislation: Sec. 1(1) TMA (No. 17 of 2010) Register of Trademarks: Sec. 2(1) & 2(2)
A “trademark” means, a sign or mark or combination of signs or marks capable of being represented
graphically and capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of another
undertaking; The concept of “goods” refers to products on which the trademark can be physically
affixed, directly or by means of labels or packaging (for example shoes or computers), while the notion
of “services” refers to activities of an intangible nature (such as financial, banking, travel or advertising) .
A. In order to individualize a product for the consumer, the trademark must indicate its source. This
does not mean that it must inform the consumer of the actual person who has manufactured the
product or even the one who is trading in it: the consumer in fact often does not know the name
of the manufacturer, still less the geographical location of the factory in which the product was
made. This is not necessary for the trademark to fulfil its purpose of indicating origin. It is sufficient
that the consumer can trust in a given enterprise, not necessarily known to him, being responsible
for the product sold under the trademark (World Intellectual Property Organisation, 1993).
B. The origin function as described above presupposes that the trademark distinguishes the goods of
the given enterprise from those of other enterprises; only if it allows the consumer to distinguish
a product sold under it from the goods of other enterprises offered on the market can the
trademark fulfil its origin function. This shows that the distinguishing function and the origin
function cannot really be separated. For practical purposes one can even simply rely on the
distinguishing function of the trademark, and define it as "A sign which serves to distinguish the
goods of one enterprise from those of other enterprises (World Intellectual Property Organisation,
1993)."
C. Signs: A “sign or mark” includes any word, symbol, slogan, logo, sound, smell, colour,
brand label, name, signature, letter, numeral or any combination of them used to
distinguish goods or services may be considered a trademark. In some instances, advertising
slogans are also considered trademarks. An example is the MTN slogan, “Everywhere you
go.”
D. However, it should be noted from the outset that the registration of less traditional forms of
trademarks - such as single colors, three-dimensional signs (shapes of products or packaging),
audible signs (sounds) or olfactory signs (smells) - may be subject to limits and disclaimers.
E. Service Marks. In trade, consumers are confronted not only with a vast choice of goods of all
kinds, but also with an increasing variety of services such as Telecommunication services, cleaning
services, advertisement services, e.t.c. These signs are sometimes called service marks but are
essentially all called, trademarks.
F. Examples of trademarks and service marks will be shown below.
Trademark Good/services
Legal services
Telecom services
MTN Telecom services

Everywhere you go
1.2. Functions of a Trademark
A. Source Indication function: We have seen that the origin-indicating and/or distinguishing
function of the trademark is the basis for its legal protection, but the trademark does, of course,
have other functions.
B. The Communication function: An owner uses the trademark to communicate with the
consumer, not only through the goods bearing the mark but also in advertising.
C. Commercial or economic function: The trademark can, by its acquired reputation, become a
valuable piece of property for the owner, allowing him to license or franchise it or to make other
commercial use of it. Thus, the trademark can have important economic functions.
D. Quality function or the guarantee function. consumers can rely on the consistent quality of the
goods offered and brand equity built under the mark. If a consumer is deceived as to the quality of
a product, he may have to resort to an action based on unfair competition or on specific consumer-
protection legislation, as trademark law offers him no remedy. His best weapon against a trademark
owner whose product, offered under the trademark, has disappointed him is to refuse to buy that
product again.
1.3. Certification marks and Other signs

There are a number of other distinctive signs in addition to trademarks and service marks which have their
own economic value, such as collective marks, certification marks, Geographical Indications and trade
names.
A. Certification marks
Relevant laws: Sections 13 – 15 of the Trademarks Act, 2010.
A certification mark is a mark indicating that the goods or services in connection with which it is
used are certified by the proprietor of the mark in respect of origin, material, mode of manufacture of
goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics1. Accordingly, there is
a clear distinction between the owner of the trademark, which is the person or association in charge of
the certification process, and the user, which is the producer of the goods that have been examined and
certified. Therefore, certification marks are used to indicate that a good or service complies with a
manufacturing standard or specification (e.g.UNBS which certifies that the goods on which it is
used are made according to the standards set by UNBS.
B. Collective marks
A collective mark is a mark distinguishing the goods or services of members of the association which is
the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings. A collective mark might just indicate that
its user is a member of the association. In such cases, we speak of «collective membership marks».
An example is provided by the collective mark registered by the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW).
However, the most common function of a collective mark is to certify that the goods produced by the
members of the association have certain characteristics (e.g. have been produced in a specific place or
according to certain qualitative standards). For example, the trademark Creadores España (Creators, Spain)
is the trademark belonging to the Asociación de Creadores de Moda de España, which can be used by
their associates, which gather the most important Spanish designers and fashion maisons, which together
earn over 400 million euro annually.
In the latter case, the collective mark performs a function which is very similar to that of a certification
mark. This explains why the law of some countries regulates only individual and collective trademarks,
taking for granted that they can be used also to certify the quality of goods produced or marketed by a
person other than the proprietor of the mark.
Certification marks and collective marks should be distinguished from geographical indications, which are treated as a
separate type of intellectual property. Further details will be discussed later.
C. Domain names
An internet domain name is a name associated to an internet IP address and it is meant to make easier
for net-surfers to reach a specific virtual place on the net (e.g. a website). For example, the website of the
International University of East Africa, Uganda, has the domain name « https://iuea.ac.ug/». Internet
Domain names are now commonly used as business identifiers for e-commerce. Many of them include
trademarks or company names which have been registered as trademarks. WIPO Academy Course DL
202 “Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property” provides further details about the legal issues
in relation to Internet Domain names.
D. Trade or business names
Businesses may own and use one, several or many different trademarks to distinguish their goods and
services from those of their competitors. However, they also need to distinguish themselves from other
businesses through the names of their businesses. For that purpose, they will adopt a trade name. Trade
names have in common with trademarks and service marks that they exercise a distinguishing
function. Unlike trademarks and service marks, however, trade names distinguish one enterprise from
another, quite independently of the goods or services that the enterprise markets or renders, at least as a
general principle. In Uganda, business names are provided for and regulated under the business names
Registration Act and the Companies Act, 2012, that lay down certain requirements to be met for a
business name to be registered.
2. REGISTRABLE AND UN-REGISTRABLE MARKS
2.1 Criteria of Registration
The are requirements which a sign must meet in order to serve as a trademark.
Generally speaking, different kinds of requirements are to be established.
a) The first kind of requirement relates to capability to distinguish the goods or services of one
enterprise from those of other enterprises. Where a sign is not inherently capable of
distinguishing the relevant goods or services, qualification for registration depends on
distinctiveness acquired through use.
b) Distinctiveness as a pre-requisite for registration of a mark. A trademark, in order to function, must
be distinctive.
c) Restriction on registration of marks on public interest grounds.
d) Prohibition of registration of identical or similar marks. Section 25, TMA.
ASSESMENT QUESTIONS (AQ)

AQ1. Under what instances may the registrar of Trademarks register or set conditions for the
registration of identical or similar marks?
AQ2. Under what circumstances may the registrar of Trademarks require a disclaimer on a
trademark application?
(Read: Disclaimer/concurrent use sections 25-27)
2.2 Protectable subject matter.

Section 4 of the TMA, 2010.
A. A sign or combination of signs, capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking
from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting a trademark.
i. Word marks: This category includes company names, surnames, forenames, geographical names
and any other words or sets of words, whether invented or not, and slogans. A word mark is
a typewritten mark with elements including letters (either lower or upper case), words (either
in lower, or upper case letters), numerals or standard typographic characters. A mark consisting
of text in non-standard layout, for instance written across more than one line, will not be
categorised as a word mark, as these marks are considered to be figurative.
ii. Figurative marks: A figurative mark is a mark consisting of:

• exclusively figurative elements;
• a combination of verbal and figurative or otherwise graphical elements;
• verbal elements in non-standard fonts;
• verbal elements in colour;
• verbal elements on more than one line;
• letters from non-UG alphabets;
• signs that cannot be reproduced by a keyboard;
• combinations of the above.
iii. Letters and numerals. Examples are one or more letters, one or more numerals or any combination
thereof.
iv. Devices. This category includes fancy devices, drawings and symbols and also two dimensional
representations of goods or containers.
v. Shape marks.
A shape mark is a mark consisting of, or extending to, a three-dimensional shape, including containers,
packaging, the product itself or its appearance. The term ‘extending to’ means that shape marks cover not
only shapes per se, but also shapes that contain other elements, such as word elements, figurative elements or
labels. The shape mark may be represented by either a graphic representation of the shape or a photographic
reproduction. The meaning of a graphic representation is extended to comprise the use of new technology,
thereby allowing the filing of computer-generated images or animated designs.
• Nestle SA vs. Mars UK Ltd [2004] EWCA 1008
• Dualit Limited's (Toaster Shapes) Trade Mark Applications [1999] RPC 304 TMR
• Bongrain’s, S.A’s Appln [2005] ETMR 47 (604) – application was to register the shape of
a flower for cheese. It was said consumers do not eat trademarks, they do not think the
particular shape is an indication of trade origin. Held not to be distinctive -Just because a
shape, colour, or word is memorable, does not mean it is an indication of trade origin
(you don’t have to know who the trade origin is, but must know that it is an
indication of a trade origin).
vi. Colored marks. This category includes words, devices and any combinations thereof in color, as well
as color combinations and color as such. A colour mark is a trade mark that consists exclusively
of a single colour without contour or a combination of colours without contours. What is protected
is the shade of colour(s) and, in the case of more than one colour, the systematic arrangement of
the colours in a predetermined and uniform way.
(In this case, the color lilac is the subject of

protection).
vii. Sound marks. Such as; the combination of tones with which all Intel advertisement ends and the
Roaring from the lion of the MGM studios heard at the beginning of their movie. A sound mark
is defined as a trade mark consisting exclusively of a sound or combination of sounds.
viii. Three-dimensional signs. A typical category of three-dimensional signs is the shape of the goods or
their packaging. However, other three-dimensional signs such as the three-pointed Mercedes star
can serve as a trademark.
ix. Combinations marks. A combination of all or any signs listed above, including logotypes and labels.
x. Olfactory marks (smell marks). Imagine that a company sells its goods (e.g. wntmg paper) with a certain
fragrance and the consumer becomes accustomed to recognizing the goods by their smell.
B. However, the TMA provides for a list of signs which cannot be registered as trademarks. For
instance, a sign which consists in the shape of the product itself can be registered as a trademark
provided that it does not consist exclusively of: (i) the shape which results from the nature of the
goods themselves; (ii) the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; (iii) the
shape which gives substantial value to the goods. The rationale behind this rule is that such shapes
have an intrinsic value (e.g. utilitarian, aesthetic) which has nothing to do with their distinctiveness
and should therefore remain free for all, as long as they are not protected in the specific case by other
intellectual property right (e.g. patent rights or industrial design rights).
C. Where a sign is not inherently capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services, qualification for
registration shall depend on distinctiveness acquired through use.
D. A sign shall be capable of graphical representation in order to be registered.
Art. 15 TRIPS leaves member States of WTO free to deny protection to signs that are not «visually perceptible».
For example, under Sec. 4(3) of the TMA, a mark should be capable of graphical representation in order to be
registered.
Case study: Court of Justice of the European Union, 12 December 2002, case C-273/00, «Sieckmann».
Mr. Sieckmann deposited a trade mark in respect of various services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 of the Nice
Agreement of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, which include advertising, business management, business
administration and office functions (Class 35), education, providing of training, entertainment and sporting and
cultural activities (Class 41), providing of food and drink, temporary accommodation, medical, hygienic and
beauty care, veterinary and agricultural services, legal services, scientific and industrial research, computer
programming and services that cannot be placed in other classes (Class 42).
In the section of the application form headed «Reproduction of the Trade Mark», pursuant to Article 2 of the
Directive under which, to be able to constitute a mark a sign must be capable of being represented graphically,
Mr. Sieckmann referred to a description attached as an annex to his registration application. That description
reads as follows: «Trade mark protection is sought for the olfactory mark […] of the pure chemical substance
methyl cinnamate (= cinnamic acid methyl ester), whose structural formula is» C6H5-CH = CHCOOCH3.
«Samples of this olfactory mark can also be obtained via local laboratories listed in the Gelbe Seiten (Yellow
Pages) of Deutsche Telekom AG or, for example, via the firm E. Merck in Darmstadt».’ Mr Sieckmann also
submitted with his registration application an odour sample of the sign in a container and stated that the scent
was usually described as «balsamically fruity with a slight hint of cinnamon».
The trademark office refused the application for registration on the ground that it wasn’t capable of
distinguishing the relevant goods or services. Moreover, the office doubted whether the trade mark applied for
was capable of being represented graphically.
The question whether smells, like the one requested by Mr. Sieckmann, could be registered according to
European Union law came before the European Court of Justice, which considered it under two different
perspectives: i) if signs which do not appeal to the eye can be registered as trademarks; ii) if and how such sign
can be represented graphically for the purpose of art. 2 Directive.
As to the first question, the European Court of Justice considered that, according to art. 2 Directive, «a trade
mark may consist of any sign, provided that it is, first, capable of being represented graphically and, second,
capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. The
purpose of Article 2 of the Directive is to define the types of signs of which a trade mark may consist. That
provision states that a trade mark may consist of ‘particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters,
numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging ...’. Admittedly, it mentions only signs which are capable of
being perceived visually, are two-dimensional or three-dimensional and can thus be represented by means of
letters or written characters or by a picture. However, as is clear from the language of both Article 2 of the
Directive and the seventh recital in the preamble thereto, which refers to a ‘list [of] examples’ of signs which
may constitute a trade mark, that list is not exhaustive. Consequently, that provision, although it does not
mention signs which are not in themselves capable of being perceived visually, such as odours, does not,
however, expressly exclude them». In those circumstances, the Court decided that article 2 of the Directive
must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of being
perceived visually, provided that it can be represented graphically.
This conclusion led the Court to the second question, namely whether a smell can be represented graphically.
In this respect, the Court considered that «such graphic representation must enable the sign to be represented
visually, particularly by means of images, lines or characters, so that it can be precisely identified. Such an
interpretation is required to allow for the sound operation of the trade mark registration system. First, the
function of the graphic representability requirement is, in particular, to define the mark itself in order to
determine the precise subject of the protection afforded by the registered mark to its proprietor. Next, the entry
of the mark in a public register has the aim of making it accessible to the competent authorities and the public,
particularly to economic operators. On the one hand, the competent authorities must know with clarity and
precision the nature of the signs of which a mark consists in order to be able to fulfil their obligations in relation
to the prior examination of registration applications and to the publication and maintenance of an appropriate
and precise register of trade marks. On the other hand, economic operators must, with clarity and precision, be
able to find out about registrations or applications for registration made by their current or potential
competitors and thus to receive relevant information about the rights of third parties. If the users of that register
are to be able to determine the precise nature of a mark on the basis of its registration, its graphic representation
in the register must be self-contained, easily accessible and intelligible. Furthermore, in order to fulfill its role
as a registered trade mark a sign must always be perceived unambiguously and in the same way so that the mark
is guaranteed as an indication of origin. In the light of the duration of a mark's registration and the fact that, as
the Directive provides, it can be renewed for varying periods, the representation must be durable. Finally, the
object of the representation is specifically to avoid any element of subjectivity in the process of identifying and
perceiving the sign. Consequently, the means of graphic representation must be unequivocal and objective.
Then, the Court considered whether the «graphical representations» provided by Mr. Sieckmann satisfied there
requirements. In this respect, the Court deemed that «As regards a chemical formula, […] few people would
recognise in such a formula the odour in question. Such a formula is not sufficiently intelligible. In addition,
[…] a chemical formula does not represent the odour of a substance, but the substance as such, and nor is it
sufficiently clear and precise. It is therefore not a representation for the purposes of Article 2 of the Directive.
In respect of the description of an odour, although it is graphic, it is not sufficiently clear, precise and objective.
As to the deposit of an odour sample, it does not constitute a graphic representation for the purposes of Article
2 of the Directive. Moreover, an odour sample is not sufficiently stable or durable. If, in respect of an olfactory
sign, a chemical formula, a description in words or the deposit of an odour sample are not capable of satisfying,
in themselves, the requirements of graphic representability, nor is a combination of those elements able to
satisfy such requirements, in particular those relating to clarity and precision» Source: (World Intellectual
Property Organisation)
2.3. Distinctiveness as a pre-requisite.
A. Distinctiveness means that in the case of a trademark relating to goods or services, adapted in relation
to the goods in respect of which the trademark is registered or proposed to be registered, to distinguish
goods with which the owner of the trademark is or may be connected, in the course of trade, from
goods in the case of which no connection subsists. For instance, the word “apple” or shape of an
cannot be registered for a business trading in apples, but it is highly distinctive for computers. This
shows that distinctive character must be evaluated in relation to the goods to which the trademark is
applied.
B. The distinctiveness of a mark is not an absolute and unchangeable factor. Depending on the steps
taken by the user of the sign or third parties, distinctiveness can be acquired or increased or even lost.
A mark that is previously non-distinctive may acquire distinctiveness through long and intensive) use
of the sign to the point that the mark is recognized by those to whom it is addressed as identifying
goods or services from that particular trade source, or is capable of being so recognized as originating
from that particular source.
In this respect, Under section 10, a sign which is intrinsically devoid of distinctive character (e.g. because it is
descriptive of the characteristics of the concerned goods or service) can be registered if, before the date of
application for registration and following the use which has been made of it, it has acquired a distinctive
character. In such a case, one speaks of a sign that has acquired a «secondary meaning», which adds up to the
semantic (or primary) meaning that it has in respect of the goods or services concerned.
C. There are, different degrees of distinctiveness, and the question is how distinctive a sign must be in
order to be registrable. In that connection a distinction is generally made between certain typical
categories of marks;
i. fanciful or coined words which are meaningless. Fanciful or coined trademarks are invented
words without any intrinsic or real meaning. Coined words have the advantage of being easy to
protect, as they are more likely to be considered inherently distinctive and the risk of conflict with
other existing marks is. Examples of fanciful words include; EXXON and KODAK.
ii. Suggestive words.
iii. Common words from everyday language can also be highly distinctive if they communicate a meaning
that is arbitrary in relation to the products on which they are used. The same is true of the
corresponding devices. Examples are the famous CAMEL trademark for cigarettes (and the equally
famous device mark) and APPLE mark (both the word and the device) for computers.
iv. Descriptive words/marks. If the sign is exclusively descriptive, it lacks distinctiveness and cannot be
registered as such as a trademark. Descriptive signs are those that serve in trade to designate the
kind, quality, intended purpose, value, place of origin, time of production or any other
characteristic of the goods for which the sign is intended to be used or is being used.
Wrigley v OHIM [2003] – Wrigley applied to register ‘double mint’ for chewing gum. This was refused,
Wrigley’s did not accompany their application with any evidence of use(even though they had been using
since 1895). It was devoid of any distinctive character (They later made another application with evidence of
use and it was registered)
v. Generic terms. A sign is generic when it defines a category or type to which the goods belong. It is
essential to the trade and also to consumers that nobody should be allowed to monopolize such a
generic term. Examples of generic terms are “furniture” (for furniture in general, and also for
tables, chairs, etc.) and “chair” (for chairs). These signs are totally lacking any distinctiveness, and
some jurisdictions hold that, even if they are used intensively and may have acquired a secondary
meaning, they cannot be registered since, in view of the absolute need of the trade to be able to
use them, they must not be monopolized. Where these have derived a secondary meaning through
use, registration may be accepted subject to certain conditions and disclaimers to the exclusive use
of the generic words except as represented.
vi. Names, surnames: Section 1 of TMA, Section 9 of TMA, Section 24 TMA.
vii. Company names and trade names are registrable, except where they are deceptive or not distinctive.
Common surnames are not registrable in some countries, since they are not distinctive. As for less
common surnames, it is, in such countries, important to establish whether another meaning in
everyday language will be overwhelmingly recognized by consumers. If there is such a dominant
meaning, the sign is registrable on the condition that the meaning in question is not descriptive of
the goods for which the mark is to be used.
Case Summary – Descriptiveness of top level domains (TLD) as a trademark 193. In re the Dot
Communications Network LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1062 (TTAB 2011).
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the USPTO affirmed in a precedential decision a refusal to
register the mark MUSIC, for domain registration and hosting services, various computer-related services, and
music-related goods, on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive under Section 2 (e) (1) Lanham Act.
The Board's ruling was based "on the current marketing environment which is different than the marketing
environment when many of the similar third-party trademark registrations relied upon by applicant were
issued."
The applicant filed five US trademark applications “.MUSIC” for music related goods and services in Nice
classes 9, 35, 41, 42 and 45. The examiner refused to register the marks under Section 2(e)(1) Lanham Act, the
US Federal Trademark Act, on the ground that applicant’s mark was merely descriptive of the identified goods
and services for the following reasons: "music is a feature of applicant's goods and services" and, the period at
the beginning of the mark is a "mere punctuation that does not alter the commercial impression of the mark as
being something more than just the word 'Music.'".
The applicant argued that MUSIC is arbitrary with respect to many of the identified services. Furthermore, a
TLD did have a source-identifying function, "since by definition the domain names from a particular TLD
emanate from only one domain registry source." The applicant also claimed that the USPTO had a practice of
allowing registration of top-level domains, including such TLDs as .am, .fm, .travel, .nu, and .coop. It noted
that "all of these include domain registration services, and may include a much broader variety of online
services”.
The TTAB, however, affirmed the examiners refusal. It observed that the situation had changed since the time,
when the first few TLDs were created. Since then, a whole series of new TLD was approved, with the .xxx
TLD in 2010 the last one. In 2011, ICANN announced that "it would greatly increase the number of top-level
domains by allowing nearly any new name in any language." As a result, the TTAB noted, there are groups
seeking various top-level domain names, including a group (unaffiliated with Applicant) that is seeking the name
.music, which is intended for use by musicians and the music industry. The TTAB concluded that the public
will perceive .MUSIC "as a top-level domain associated with the field of music because there has been a
concerted public effort to build support for its use as a top-level domain in this field." In the TTAB’s own
words: “In view of the foregoing, we find that applicant’s proposed mark .music conveys the commercial
impression of a top-level domain name similar to .com, .net, etc., and not merely the word “Music” featuring
non-distinctive punctuation. Moreover, consumers would understand it to be a top-level domain in the field of
music. This finding is based on the current marketing environment which is different than the marketing
environment when many of the thirdparty registrations relied upon by applicant were issued. When many of
the third-party registrations were issued, ICANN was not considering expansion of the roster of domain name
extensions. Nor does the record reveal active campaigns to obtain TLD status for the marks in those
registrations as there is for the .music top-level domain. Therefore, the third-party registrations submitted by
applicant for marks consisting of “dot ____________” or “.__________” have very limited probative value...”.
The decision shows a current international trend that is not limited to US trademark law that, trademarks
consisting of or, containing TLD, have to be regarded as descriptive and thus, non-registrable, if their meaning
relates to the goods or services covered by the application. The perception of the consumers might have been
a different one in the early days of the internet. In the meantime, the consumers are well aware of the multitude
of TLDs that can be registered and are used so that they will not perceive it as indication to the source of the
goods or services covered by a respective trademark. Source: (World Intellectual Property Organisation)
Case summary: Corte of Justice of the European Union, 29 April 2004, in joined cases C456/01 P and
C-457/01 P, «Henkel»
On 15 December 1997 and 8 January 1998, Henkel applied to OHIM for registration as Community trade
marks of two three-dimensional tablets, the first consisting of a white layer and a red layer superposed (Case T-
335/99) and the second consisting of a white layer and a green layer superposed (Case T-336/99). The products
in respect of which registration of the mark is sought are in class 3 of the Nice Agreement concerning the
International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June
1957, as revised and amended, and correspond to the description: ‘washing or dishwashing preparations in
tablet form’.
By decisions of 3 February 1999, the OHIM examiner refused the applications on the ground that the trade
marks for which registration was sought were devoid of distinctive character and for that reason could not be
registered on account of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Third Board of Appeal of OHIM upheld
the examiner’s decisions finding that each of the trade marks for which registration was sought was devoid of
distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, since its actual shape did not,
with regard to the consumer or end buyer, serve to identify the origin of the products to which the trade mark
would be affixed. The Board of Appeal stated that a threedimensional shape had to be sufficiently unique to
imprint itself easily on the mind and to stand out from whatever is normal in trade.
By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 26 November 1999, Henkel brought
two actions for annulment of the contested decisions.
In Case T-335/99, the Court of First Instance held that the Board of Appeal of OHIM had rightly found that
the three-dimensional trade mark for which registration is sought was devoid of any distinctive character within
the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, and did so on the following grounds:
The mark in respect of which registration is sought in the present case consists of the shape and the colour
arrangement of a washing machine or dishwasher tablet, that is, of the design of the product itself.
It is clear from Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94 that both a product’s shape and its colours fall among the
signs which may constitute a Community trade mark. However, the fact that a category of signs is, in general,
capable of constituting a trade mark does not mean that signs belonging to that category necessarily have
distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in relation to a specific product
or service.
According to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive
character” are not to be registered. A mark which enables the goods or services in respect of which registration
of the mark has been sought to be distinguished as to their origin is to be considered as having distinctive
character. It is not necessary for that purpose for the mark to convey exact information about the identity of
the manufacturer of the product or the supplier of the services. It is sufficient that the mark enables members
of the public concerned to distinguish the product or service that it designates from those which have a different
trade origin and to conclude that all the products or services that it designates have been manufactured,
marketed or supplied under the control of the owner of the mark and that the owner is responsible for their
quality (see, to that effect, Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 28).
It is clear from the wording of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 that a minimum degree of distinctive
character is sufficient to render the ground for refusal set out in that article inapplicable. It is therefore
appropriate to ascertain – in an a priori examination not involving any consideration of the use made of the
sign within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 – whether the mark applied for will enable the
members of the public targeted to distinguish the products concerned from those having a different trade origin
when they come to select a product for purchase.
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 does not distinguish between different categories of trade marks. The
criteria for assessing the distinctive character of three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the
product itself are therefore no different from those applicable to other categories of trade marks.
Nevertheless, when those criteria are applied, account must be taken of the fact that the perception of the
relevant section of the public is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of
the shape and the colours of the product itself as it is in relation to a word mark, a figurative mark or a three-
dimensional mark not consisting of the shape of the product. Whilst the public is used to recognising the latter
marks instantly as signs identifying the product, this is not necessarily so where the sign is indistinguishable
from the appearance of the product itself.
The Board of Appeal rightly points out that, as regards the perception of the public concerned, the products
for which trade-mark registration was sought in the present case, namely washing machine and dishwasher
products in tablet form, are widely used consumer goods. The public concerned, in the case of these products,
is all consumers. Therefore, in any assessment of the distinctive character of the mark for which registration is
sought, account must be taken of the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well
informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (see, by analogy, Case C-210/96 Gut Springenheide and
Tusky [1998] ECR I4657, paragraphs 30 to 32).
The way in which the public concerned perceives a trade mark is influenced by the average consumer’s level of
attention, which is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (see Case C-342/97
Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 26). In that regard, the Board of Appeal rightly held
that the level of attention given by the average consumer to the shape and colours of washing machine and
dishwasher tablets, being everyday goods, is not high.
In order to ascertain whether the combination of the tablet’s shape and the arrangement of its colours may be
perceived by members of the public as an indication of origin, the overall impression produced by that
combination must be analysed (see, by analogy, Case C-251/95 SABEL [1997] ECR I-6191, paragraph 23).
That is not incompatible with an examination of each of the product’s individual features in turn.
The three-dimensional shape for which registration has been sought … is one of the basic geometrical shapes
and is an obvious one for a product intended for use in washing machines or dishwashers. …
As to the tablet’s two layers the public concerned is used to seeing different colour features in detergent
preparations. … The coloured particles thus suggest certain qualities, although that does not mean that they
can be regarded as a descriptive indication in terms of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. However, it does
not follow from the fact that that ground for refusal is inapplicable that the coloured elements necessarily confer
a distinctive character on the mark applied for. Where, as in the present case, the target sector of the public
sees the presence of coloured elements as a suggestion that the product has certain qualities, and not as an
indication of its origin, there is no distinctive character. The fact that consumers may nevertheless get into the
habit of recognising the product from its colours is not enough, in itself, to preclude the ground for refusal
based on Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. Such a development in the public’s perception of the sign, if
proved, may be taken into account only for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.
The use of basic colours, such as blue or green, is commonplace and is even typical of detergents. The use of
other basic colours, such as red or yellow, is one of the most obvious variations on the typical design of these
products.
It follows that the three-dimensional mark applied for consists of a combination of obvious features typical of
the product concerned. […] Given the overall impression created by the shape of the tablet in question and the
arrangement of its colours, the mark applied for will not enable consumers to distinguish the products
concerned from those having a different trade origin when they come to select a product for purchase’.
The Court of Justice of the European Union upheld this decision. Source: (World Intellectual Property
Organisation)
AQ3: Why are the following trademarks likely to be rejected in many countries?
a. “Made in Uganda” for clothing articles
b. “Vegetables” for roadside markey
c. “Fresh” for pineapples
d. the single color white for milk products (7) “Mubiru” for restaurants in Kampala
e. “On Time” for airline services
f. “Illuminating” for light bulbs (10) A ribbon that ties the package containing the goods for packaging
services.
g. “ABC” as a word mark for children’s books.
2.4. Exclusion from registration: Unregistrable Trademarks.
The registrar shall not register as a trademark or part of a trademark upon the following grounds;
i. Lack of distinctiveness: Look at generic terms, Descriptive signs. Signs may lack distinctiveness for other
reasons. This is true of a device which, owing to its simplicity or pure illustrative or ornamental
character, may not capture the consumer's attention at all as a sign referring to the origin of the product,
but rather as a mere illustrative part of the packaging of the goods offered to him.
ii. likely to deceive or would be contrary to law, policy, morality or any scandalous design;
Countries are obliged by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention to protect also the notified signs of other
member States and international intergovernmental organizations (such as the United Nations
Organization).
- Trademarks that are likely to deceive the public as to the nature, quality or any other characteristics
of the goods or their geographical origin do not, in the interest of the public, qualify for
registration.
- a word commonly used and accepted as a name of a single chemical element or compound, as
distinguished from a mixture, relating to goods in respect of a chemical substance or preparation;
- A sign shall not be registered as a trademark relating to goods if it consists exclusively of— (a) the
shape that results from the nature of the goods themselves; (b) the shape of goods that is necessary
to obtain a technical result; or (c) the shape that gives substantial value to the goods.
- Signs that are descriptive or indicative of geographical origin are false for products that do not
come from the region described or indicated.
AQ4: Why are the following trademarks likely to be rejected?

a. “Natural” for soft drinks
b. “bloody slaughter” for weapons
c. “Color Life” for fax machines
d.
e. BARACK OBAMA for wine
========================================
iii. Signs contrasting with earlier trademarks;
This relates to the existence of earlier rights of third parties, which may prevent the registration of the trademark
(where opposition proceedings are provided for the applicable law) or justify the cancellation of trademarks
already granted. A trademark relating to goods shall not be registered in respect of goods or description of
goods that is identical with or nearly resembles a trademark belonging to a different owner and already on the
register in respect of— (a) the same goods; (b) the same description of goods; or (c) services or a description
of services which are associated with those goods or goods of that description.
END OF CHAPTER: ASSIGNMENT 1;

1. Describe the various instances where a mark may lose or acquire distinctiveness
2. Read, review & summarise the following legal and case law provisions.
- Regulation 13 of S.I 58 of 2012
- Section 23, 24, 25 and 26 TMA, 2010
- Imperial Group Ltd vs Phillip Morris & Co. Ltd [1982] FSR 72
- Eastman Photographic Materials Co. Ltd [1898] AC 571
- Electrix Ltd vs. Electrolux Ltd [1960] AC 722
- I Can't believe its Yoghurt Trade Mark [1992] RPC 533
CHAPTER 3: TRDEMARK REGISTRATION IN UGANDA.
Note: Chapter 3 notes will be substantively created through the individual effort of each student in take home
assignments with guidance from the lecturer.
3. PROCEDURE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS IN UGANDA.
1. Conduct a pre-filing search to ascertain whether the trademark exists in the register upon payment.
2. Identify the correct classification of the goods or services sought to be protected. A trademark relating
to goods or services shall be registered shall be registered in respect of particular goods or classes of
goods. Every application must contain a list of goods and services as a condition for being accorded a
filing date. The list must be classified in accordance with the Nice Agreement
3. in respect of particular goods or classes of goods.
4. Application of registration
5. Formal Examination of the application
Examination of the trademark application as to form. Upon receipt of an application for trademark registration,
virtually all countries check whether such application complies with the formal requirements, i.e., whether all
indications have been correctly provided, and whether fees have been paid in full. In case of irregularities, a
time limit of several months is usually given to the applicant in order to remedy this irregularity.
6. Substantive examination of the application
Examination of the trademark application as to substance. A distinction must be made between two types of
grounds for refusal: the so-called “absolute grounds” and “relative grounds”.
The absolute grounds for refusal are those which concern the intrinsic conditions of validity of a mark, provided
for in the interest of consumer protection, that is, whether the mark is distinctive, not deceptive, not immoral
or against public order, and not in breach of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. Before granting registration,
the vast majority of countries checks that a mark does not conflict with one of those “absolute grounds” for
refusal.
Absolute grounds for refusal:
Grounds for refusal:
•trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character.
Words are non-distinctive or cannot confer distinctiveness on a composite sign if they are so frequently used
that they have lost any capacity to distinguish goods and services. The following terms, alone or in combination
with other unregistrable elements, fall foul of this provision. Terms merely denoting a particular positive or
appealing quality or function of the goods and services should be refused if applied
Slogans: Advertising slogans are objectionable when the relevant public only perceives them as a mere
promotional formula. However, they are deemed to be distinctive if, apart from their promotional function,
the public perceives them as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question.
The following criteria may be used by the trademark office when assessing the distinctive character of a slogan.
An advertising slogan is likely to be distinctive whenever it is seen as more than a mere advertising message
extolling the qualities of the goods or services in question because it:
• constitutes a play on words, and/or

• introduces elements of conceptual intrigue or surprise, so that it may be perceived as imaginative,
surprising or unexpected, and/or
• has some particular originality or resonance, and/or
• triggers in the minds of the relevant public a cognitive process or requires an interpretative effort.
In addition to the above, the following characteristics of a slogan may contribute towards a finding of
distinctiveness:
• unusual syntactic structures;
• the use of linguistic and stylistic devices, such as alliteration, metaphors, rhyme, paradox, etc.
A slogan whose meaning is vague or impenetrable or whose interpretation requires considerable mental effort
on the part of the relevant consumers is also likely to be distinctive since consumers would not be able to
establish a clear and direct link with the goods and services for which the trade mark is protected.
The following examples are drawn from the EU Court of Justice and OHIM showing accepted and
rejected trademarks during substantive examination.
a. Rejected slogans
EUTM Main function Case No
EUTM No 5 904 438
MORE THAN JUST A

CARD
Customer service statement R 1608/2007-4
for Class 36
(bank, credit and debit card

services)
Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR
The slogan merely conveys information about the goods and services for which protection is sought. It is the kind of
language an English speaker would use to describe a bank card that is a little out of the ordinary. It conveys the notion
that the card has welcome features that are not obvious at first sight. The fact that the slogan leaves open what these
features are, that is to say, that the mark does not describe a specific service or characteristic of the ‘card’, does not make
the mark distinctive.
EUTM No 7 394 414
WE PUT YOU FIRST. AND

(Examiner’s decision
KEEP YOU AHEAD Customer service statement
without BoA case)
for Class 40
The mark is a promotional laudatory message, highlighting the positive aspects of the services, namely that they help to
procure the best position in the business and maintain this position in the future.
EUTM No 6 173 249
SAVE OUR EARTH

NOW Value statement or political motto R 1198/2008-4
for Classes 3, 17, 18,

20, 22, 24, 25 and 28
The sign is a simple and straightforward appeal to take action and contribute to the Earth’s well-being by favouring the
purchase of environment-friendly products. Contrary to the appellant’s contentions that the word ‘now’ constitutes an
original element since nobody will believe that by purchasing the goods in question they will literally save the Earth now,
the word ‘NOW’ is an emotional word commonly used in marketing to urge consumers to consume, to get what they
want without waiting; it is a call to action. The relevant consumer will immediately recognise and perceive the sign as a
promotional laudatory expression indicating that the goods represent an environment-friendly alternative to other goods
of the same sort, and not as an indication of commercial origin.
EUTM No 4 885 323
DRINK WATER, NOT

Inspirational or motivational statement R 718/2007-2
SUGAR
for Classes 32 and 33

The mark is a banal slogan that merely conveys the idea that the consumer will be drinking real water rather than a sugary
drink. The mark lacks any secondary or covert meaning, has no fanciful elements, and its message to the consumer is plain,
direct and unambiguous. For these reasons, it is unlikely to be perceived as a sign of trade origin. It is easily seen that the
mark consists merely of good counsel, namely that it is better from a health point of view to drink water that has not been
sugared. What better way to promote such goods than by an expression such as DRINK WATER, NOT SUGAR?
Consumers will read this with approval, but will look elsewhere on the product for the trade mark.
DREAM IT, DO IT!

02/07/2008, T-186/07,
Classes 35, 36, 41 and Inspirational or motivational statement
EU:T:2008:244
45
The relevant English-speaking public will see this as an invitation or encouragement to achieve their dreams and will
understand the message that the services covered by that trade mark will allow them to do so.
VALORES DE FUTURO
Value statement 06/12/2013, T-428/12, EU:T:2013:629
for Class 41
The relevant public when confronted with the expression VALORES DE FUTURO will perceive a laudatory message
whose only objective is to give a positive view of the services involved.
INVESTING FOR A
NEW WORLD Value statement 29/01/2015, T-59/14
Classes 35 and 36
The sign INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD, considered as a whole, may be easily understood by the relevant public,
in view of the common English words of which it consists, as meaning that the services offered are intended for a new
world’s needs. Given that the services covered by the mark applied for are all related to activities connected with finance
and have a close link with the word ‘investing’, the Board of Appeal was right to find that the message conveyed by the
expression ‘investing for a new world’ was that, when purchasing the services in question, the money or capital invested
created an opportunity in a new world, which carried a positive connotation. The Court also found that the fact that the
expression at issue could be interpreted in a number of ways did not alter its laudatory nature.
SO WHAT DO I DO WITH
MY MONEY
Classes 35 and 36
Value statement 29/01/2015, T-609/13
The expression ‘so what do I do with my money’ prompts consumers to ask themselves what they should do with their
financial resources and assets. In the present case, the average reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and
circumspect consumer of the services covered by the application for registration will, on reading or hearing that expression,
wonder whether he or she is using his or her money effectively.
PIONEERING FOR
YOU
Value statement 12/12/2014, T-601/13, EU:T:2014:1067
Classes 7, 9, 11, 37 and
42
The sign would be understood as ‘innovative for you’. The meaning of the sign is clear and does not leave any doubts.
The structure of the sign is grammatically correct and does not trigger any mental process in order to arrive at its meaning.
It is, as a whole, a simple message that could be attributed to any producer or service provider with the natural consequence
that it does not indicate the origin of the goods or services
Examples of accepted slogans
EUTM Classes Case No
R 879/2011-2,
SITEINSIGHTS Classes 9 and 42

EUTM No 9 284 597
The mark ‘SITEINSIGHTS’ shows some degree of originality and expressiveness, which makes it
easy to remember. It contains a play on words as the word ‘SITE’ and the ‘SIGHT’ element of
‘INSIGHTS’ are pronounced identically.
EUTM Classes Case No
22/01/2015, T-133/13,
EU:T:2015:46
WET DUST CAN’T FLY Classes 3, 7 and 37
The concept of ‘wet dust’ is literally inaccurate, since dust is no longer dust when it is wet.
Consequently, the juxtaposition of those two words gives that concept a fanciful and distinctive
character.
b. Non distinctive labels
A figurative sign may be composed of shapes, designs or figures that will be perceived by the relevant public
as non-distinctive labels. In this case, the reason for the refusal lies in the fact that such figurative elements are
not capable of impressing themselves on the consumer’s mind, since they are too simple and/or commonly
used in connection with the goods/services for which protection is sought.
Sign Reasoning Case No
This sign was refused as it is identical to the core of the international

safety symbol for ‘high voltage’ or ‘caution, risk of electric shock’. The
device applied for, within the triangle denoting a hazard symbol, has been 21/09/2012, R 2124/2011-5,
officially defined by ISO 3864 as the standard high voltage symbol. DEVICE OF LIGHTNING
Because this sign essentially coincides with the customary international BOLT(fig.)
sign to indicate a risk of high voltage, it was refused, inter alia, under
Article 7(1)(b) and (d) EUTMR.
EUTM No 9 894 528
Refused for goods in Class 9.
for goods in Class 9
It is a well-known fact that a great variety of software applications are
available for mobile phones, tablet computers, standard computers or
other digital electronic devices, and that such applications, once they are
installed, are often represented by a symbol (icon) that makes the 25/01/2016,
application easily accessible for its user. Such symbols can be designed in
various ways, ranging from a simple image of a clock, camera or a book,
which will represent the nature of the underlying software application, to R 1616/2015-5, A B C D
an arbitrary symbol and/or a trade mark that in itself does not reveal (fig.)
anything about the software it is used for (para. 18).
The inclusion of a person’s silhouette on a square shaped background is

a natural way of designing icons that, when used in mobile phones, tablet
computers, standard computers or other digital electronic devices, will be
seen as representing an application for managing contact information,
such as telephone numbers and/or addresses (para. 19 et seq.).
Class 9
Refused for goods in Class 9 and services in Class 38.
An email system running on a computer or handheld device (e.g. tablet or mobile 05/04/2016,
phone) must use ‘icons’ to represent the current status of an application or
operation. There is no more apt ‘icon’ — which is nothing more than a small R 2256/2015-2, DEVICE
graphic representation of a program or file — to represent an electronic message OF AN OPEN
than an envelope. The ‘tick’ indicates that something has been done correctly or ENVELOPE WITH A
that something has been checked (paras 16 and 17). It is well known what these CHECK SIGN (fig.)
kind of icons look like (para. 19).
Classes 9 and 3
Refused for goods in Class 9.
The public will encounter this used as a pictogram on a mobile phone, computer, EUTM No 12 717 914
tablet or similar to indicate access to a program or application that allows the
user to make notes or write text. Some of these applications convert handwriting
into typewritten text.
Example of accepted labels

Sign Reasoning EUTM No
Accepted for goods and services in Classes 9 and 43. EUTM No 16 314 494
The representation does not have any direct discernible meaning

in relation to the goods and services at issue.
c. A figurative sign may be composed of shapes, designs or figures that will be perceived by the relevant
public as non-distinctive labels. In this case, the reason for the refusal lies in the fact that such figurative
elements are not capable of impressing themselves on the consumer’s mind, since they are too simple
and/or commonly used in connection with the goods/services for which protection is sought.
See the following examples:
The mark applied for is ‘devoid of any distinctive character’ and was
refused under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR as it is as banal and ordinary as it 22/05/2006, R1146/2005-2,
is possible to get in relation to adhesive labels. The sign says a lot about LABEL SHAPE (3D)
the nature of the goods and very little, if anything, about the identity of
EUTM No 4 373 403, filed as a three-
the producer (para. 11).
dimensional mark claiming protection
for goods in Class 16 (Adhesive labels;
adhesive labels for use with hand
labelling appliances; and labels (not of
textile))
The mark was refused, as its basic shape combined only with a bright
yellow colour could not, in the minds of the relevant professional and
general public, serve to distinguish the goods for which protection was
15/01/2013, R 444/2012-2,
sought as originating from a particular undertaking. Here, the colour
EUTM No 9 715 319 yellow may be perceived as a decoration for the goods, as well as for the DEVICE OF A LABEL IN
purpose of attracting attention to the goods, without giving any specific COLOUR YELLOW (fig.)
for goods in Classes 6, 7, 8, 9 information or precise message as to the commercial origin of the goods.
and 20 In addition, as is generally known, bright yellow is commonly used in a
functional way in relation to a wide range of goods, that is, inter alia, for
increasing the visibility of objects, highlighting or warning. For these
reasons, the relevant consumers will not recognise this colour as a trade
mark, but will perceive it as an alert or decoration.
Shape marks can be grouped into three categories:
• shapes unrelated to the goods and services themselves;

Registered for goods in Classes 16 and 21

EUTM No 1 705 367
The sign is clearly different to what is commonly expected for the
corresponding goods (paper, rolls of paper for household use, kitchen
utensils and containers, etc.).
Registered for goods in Classes 36, 39 and 42, (insurance and financial
services, rental and leasing of vehicles, and leasing of commercial and
EUTM No 715 524
industrial equipment).
The shape is unrelated to the goods and services and therefore perfectly
capable of distinguishing them.
• shapes that consist of the shape of the goods themselves or part of the goods;
Sign Case No
R 1511/2013-2
(26/11/2015, T-390/14, JK KANGOO JUMPS XR,

EU:T:2015:897)
BoA confirmed that the figurative element ‘KANGOO JUMPS’ (in both the upper and lower spring layers) and the letters ‘KJ’ and ‘XR’
(at the ends of the intermediate elastic plastic straps) could only be seen with great difficulty or not at all. Parts such as these, which can
only be noticed on close inspection, are, in general, not to be perceived as an indication of origin (para. 29).
The GC confirmed the BoA decision, stating that ‘… the word and figurative elements of the mark … are extremely minor … and,
therefore … of such a superficial nature that they do not bring any distinctive character to the mark applied for as a whole.’ (para. 27)
Sign Case No
12/07/2012, T-323/11, Botella, EU:T:2012:376
An image depicting certain stones is embossed on the central part of the bottle.
The Court confirmed the BoA decision when it considered that the applicant had failed to prove that European consumers have sufficient
information and knowledge to recognise that the embossing on the central part of the bottle at issue depicts the twelve-angle stones used
in Inca constructions. Without that proof, European consumers will merely perceive the embossing as such without being aware of its
significance, from which it follows that they will simply perceive it as a mere decoration without any distinctive character, because it is
not particularly original or striking; therefore, it will not serve to differentiate the bottle in question from other bottles widely used in the
packaging of beers (para. 25 et seq.).
Sign Case No
18/01/2013, T-137/12, Vibrator
The Court considered that the descriptive element ‘fun’ could not confer distinctiveness on the 3D sign. Moreover, the BoA was right
not to take into account the element ‘factory’ written above the word ‘fun’, as it was illegible in the application (para. 34 et seq.).
This shape was refused because it does not depart

significantly from the norm or customs of the sector.
Even though the goods in this sector typically consist
of long shapes, various other shapes exist in the 18/01/2013, T-137/12,
Vibrator
market that are spherical or round (para. 29). The
addition of the small descriptive word element ‘fun
factory’ does not remove the overall shape from the
scope of non-distinctiveness (para. 36).
Figurative marks showing a graphic representation of a naturalistic
reproduction of the goods themselves are not distinctive in relation to such
goods. The representation of a tablet for washing or dishwashing 19/09/2001, T-30/00, red-
preparations in tablet form was refused. The shape, namely a rectangular white squared washing
tablet (fig.)
tablet, is a basic shape and an obvious one for a product intended for use
in washing machines or dishwashers. The slightly rounded
corners of the tablet are not likely to be perceived by the consumer as a
distinctive feature of the shape at issue (19/09/2001, T-30/00, red-white
squared washing tablet (fig.), EU:T:2001:223, § 44, 53). The
same approach has been confirmed by several judgments, including that of
04/10/2007, C-144/06 P, Tabs (3D), EU:C:2007:577.
This shape was refused as it is merely a variant of a common shape of this

type of product, i.e. flashlights (para. 31). 07/10/2004, C-136/02 P,
Torches
The Court of Justice confirmed the refusal of this three- 06/09/2012,

dimensional sign as not being sufficiently different from the shapes
and colours of those commonly used in the sweet and chocolate C-96/11 P,
sectors. The combination with figurative elements will not lead to
the application of the criteria for two- dimensional marks. Milchmäuse,
EU:C:2012:537
This shape mark consisting of a handle, applied to goods in Class

8 (hand-operated implements used in agriculture, horticulture and
forestry, including secateurs, pruning shears, hedge clippers, 16/09/2009, T-391/07,
shearers (hand instruments)) was refused. Teil des Handgriffes,
EU:T:2009:336
Accepted product shapes
EUTM No 15 240 534
Accepted for toys
Accepted for ice creams EUTM No 10 350 593
Accepted for pumps,

EUTM No 5 242 433
compressors
Accepted in Class 9, protective covers

EUTM No 12 269 511
for mobile phones
Analogous criteria, mutatis mutandis, apply to shapes related to services, for example the device of a washing
machine for laundry services.
• the shape of packaging or containers.

The same criteria apply for the shape of bottles or containers for the goods. The shape applied for must be
materially different from a combination of basic or common elements and must be striking. In the area of
containers, regard must also be had to any functional character of a given element. As, in the field of containers
and bottles, usage in trade might be different for different types of goods, it is recommended to make a search
as to which shapes are on the market by choosing a sufficiently broad category of the goods concerned.
Examples of marks for which protection was sought for the shape of the packaging Rejected trade marks
The mark, the representation of a twisted wrapper serving as packaging for

sweets (and thus not the product itself), was refused registration as it is a
‘normal and traditional shape for a sweet wrapper and … a large number of
10/11/2004,
sweets so wrapped could be found on the market’ (para. 56). The same applies
in respect of the colour of the wrapper in question, namely ‘light brown T-402/02,
(caramel)’. This colour is not unusual in itself, and neither is it rare to see it Bonbonverpackung,
used for sweet wrappers (para. 56). Therefore, the average consumer will not EU:T:2004:330
perceive this packaging in and of itself as an indicator of origin, but merely as
a sweet wrapper.
The shape applied for was refused as it was considered that bunny-shaped
chocolate with gold wrapping is a common phenomenon on the market
corresponding to the industry concerned. An analysis of the individual 24/05/2012, C-98/11 P,
Hase
elements, that is, the shape of a rabbit, the gold foil wrapping and the red
ribbon with a bell, were held both individually and cumulatively devoid of
distinctive character (paras 44-47)
The refusal of the shape applied for was confirmed by the General Court.
The elongated neck and the flattened body do not depart from the usual 15/03/2006, T-
shape of a bottle containing the goods for which protection was sought, 129/04,
namely food products including juices, condiments and dairy products. In Plastikflaschenform,
addition, neither the length of the neck, its diameter nor the proportion EU:T:2006:84
between the width and thickness of the bottle is in any way individual (para.
50). Furthermore, even if the ridges around the sides of the bottle could be
considered distinctive, these alone are insufficient to affect the overall
impression given by the shape applied for to such an extent that it departs
significantly from the norm or customs of the sector (para. 53).
It is a well-known fact that bottles usually contain lines and creases on them.
The relief at the top is not sufficiently striking but will be perceived as a
mere decorative element. As a whole, the combination of the elements is not 19/04/2013, T-
sufficiently distinctive. The average consumer of the goods in Class 32 would 347/10,
not consider the shape as an indicator of origin of goods in Class 32.
Getränkeflasche,
EU:T:2013:201
• Rejected sound marks
Sign Goods and Reasoning Case No

services
A two note ‘tune’ has no impact on the consumer
and will only be perceived by the consumer as a very
banal sound, such as the ‘ding-dong’ of a doorbell.
35, 36, 38, 39, EUTM No 4 010 336

[Two musical notes, F and C] 41, 42
Machine-generated blip that is commonly emitted by

computers and other electronic devices.
9, 38 EUTM No 9 199 167
[Two extremely short blips]
Sound constitutes a warning signal and a direct

characteristic of the goods applied for.
9, 16, 28 R 2444/2013-1
[Ping sound, resembling a warning signal]
Sound typically linked to the goods and services

9, 12, 35 applied for. R 1338/2014-4
[Machine-generated synthesised sound]

A two note ‘tune’ has no impact on the
consumer and will only be perceived by the
35, 36, 38, 39, consumer as a very banal sound, such as the EUTM No 4 010 336
41, 42 ‘ding-dong’ of a doorbell.
[Two musical notes, F and C]
9, 38 Machine-generated blip that is commonly

emitted by computers and other electronic
devices. EUTM No 9 199 167
[Two extremely short blips]
Sound constitutes a warning signal and a direct

characteristic of the goods applied for.
9, 16, 28 R 2444/2013-1
[Ping sound, resembling a warning signal]
9, 12, 35 Sound typically linked to the goods and R 1338/2014-4

services applied for.
[Machine-generated synthesised sound]
Accepted sound marks
Sign Goods and services Reasoning Case No
The sign is short but it is not too simple and is capable

N/A (electronic file) of being memorised by the relevant consumer.
9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42,
[Short sequence of EUTM No 17 396 102
43, 44, 45
easily identifiable tones]
N/A (electronic file) 3, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 41, Clearly pronounced distinctive word (barça)
EUTM No 17 700 361
[Human voice] 43
Jingle-like sound sequences are capable of
[sequence of four different tones,
identifying goods and services.
initially falling by a fourth and 16, 35, 42 R 2056/2013-4
then rising and ending on the
median]
[The first two shorter A notes

sound less powerful than the According to general life experience, jingle-like sound
following long and higher C note. sequences enable goods and services
The higher and longer C note is to be distinguished.
9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42 R 87/2014-5
thus accentuated on account of its
pitch, length and strength]
d. Trademarks which are descriptive
Trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind,
quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering
of services, or other characteristics of goods or services.
In particular, a word is descriptive if either for the general public (if the goods or services target them) or for a
specialised public (irrespective of whether the goods or services also target the general public) the trade mark
has a descriptive meaning.
• The term ‘RESTORE’, is descriptive for surgical and medical instruments and apparatus; stents; catheters;
and guide wires; CONTINENTAL’ is descriptive for ‘live animals, that is to say, dogs’ and ‘the keeping
and breeding of dogs, that is to say, puppies and animals for breeding’. Indeed, the word ‘Continental’
indicates a breed of bulldogs; ‘Biomild’ for yoghurt being mild and organic; ‘Trustedlink’ for software for
e-commerce, business consulting services, software integration services and education services for e-
commerce technologies and services; ‘Cine Comedy’ for the broadcast of radio and television
programmes, production, showing and rental of films, and allocation, transfer, rental and other
exploitation of rights to films; ‘Quick-gripp’ for hand tools, clamps and parts for tools and clamps;

The mark merely consists of ‘ACTIV’
ACTIVMOTION SENSOR (an obvious misspelling of the word
EUTM No 10 282 614 for goods in Class 7 ‘ACTIVE’), ‘MOTION’ and
(swimming pool and spa cleaning equipment, ‘SENSOR’. Combined, the words form 06/08/2012, R 716/2012-4,
namely, sweepers, vacuums, and parts therefor) a perfectly comprehensible and plainly ACTIVMOTION SENSOR, § 11
descriptive combination, and the mark
was thus refused.
The above term is a non-existent word

but closely resembles the Spanish
adjective ‘extraordinario’. Spanish and
XTRAORDINARIO Portuguese consumers will perceive the
International registration sign as a misspelling of a word meaning 04/07/2008, R 169/2008-1,
designating the EU No 930 778, for goods in ‘remarkable’, ‘special’, ‘outstanding’, Xtraordinario, § 11-12
Class 33 (tequila) ‘superb’ or ‘wonderful’, and as such,
attribute a descriptive meaning to the
sign.
In this word mark, the combination ‘QI’

is highly uncommon in the English
LIQID language, as the letter ‘Q’ is normally 22/02/2008, R 1769/2007-2,
followed by a ‘U’. The striking LIQID, § 25
misspelling of the word ‘liquid’ would
allow even a consumer in a hurry to
EUTM No 5 330 832 initially notice the peculiarity of the word
‘LIQID’. Furthermore, the spelling
covering goods in Classes 3, 5
would not only have an effect on the
and 32 visual impression produced by the sign,
but also the aural impression, as the sign
applied for will be pronounced
differently from the word ‘liquid’.
This word is an invented word, not

existing in any known dictionary, and it
LINQ was not shown that this word is a 04/02/2002, R 9/2001-1, LINQ,
common misspelling used in the trade
circles of interest to the appellant. § 13
Additionally, because the word is short,
EUTM No 1 419 415 covering goods and the ending letter ‘Q’ will be noticed as a
services in Classes 9 and 38 peculiar element, and thus the fanciful
spelling is obvious
e. trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the
current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade UNLESS any such sign has,
before the date of application for registration ‘acquired a distinctive character as a result of the use
made of it’. The relative grounds for refusal are those which are based on the existence of a prior
conflicting mark. These grounds are called “relative” because the mark applied for is considered in
relation to other prior marks, so that they only put into play the interest of private persons or companies
but do not question the interest of the consuming public in general.
Relative Grounds:
1. Identical mark on identical goods
2. Similar/identical sign on similar/identical goods + likelihood of confusion
3. Similar/identical sign on goods where mark has reputation and sign causes detriment to distinctive
character/repute or takes unfair advantage
7. Publication of the mark and opposition period.
It is important for owners of prior rights and the public that all relevant data contained in the register,
concerning applications, registrations, renewals and changes of name, address and ownership, should be
published in an official gazette. This enables owners of prior rights to take the necessary steps, including
opposition (if provided for) or an action for cancellation. The publication of applications and registrations
should contain all the important data, such as the name and address of the applicant, a representation of the
mark, the goods grouped according to the classification system, the colors claimed, where the mark is three-
dimensional a statement to that effect, and where the priority of any other mark is claimed (the Paris
Convention, Article 4) a statement to that effect.
8. Registration of the mark.
Registration subject to disclaimer. Sec. 19, TMA.
Registration of jointly owned trademarks. Sec. 20, TMA.
Concurrent use. Sec. 27, TMA.
Series of trademarks. Sec. 30, TMA.
9. Duration and renewal
A trademark is registrable for an initial period of 7 (seven) years followed by 10 (ten) year renewal periods at a
fee.
ASSIGNMENT 2
CHAPTER ASSIGNMENTS
1. Who can apply for trademark registration in Uganda?
2. Describe in detail, the three phases of procedures before the trademark office in Uganda once an
application is tendered before it?
3. What happens where a trademark owner fails to renew their trademark upon expiry of the trademark
registration period?
4. What does the phrase, “Trademark laws are territorial” mean to you?
5. Stella wishes to register her trademark in all countries, advice Stella on what options are available to
her inorder to achieve this.
6. Distinguish between trademarks registered in Part A and Part of the trademark register as provided for
under the 2010, Trademarks Act.
7. What remedies are available under the TMA to a person aggrieved by the decision of the
registrar through out the process of application to registration of trademarks.
8. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of the protection of a mark through its use in
comparison with the protection by its registration as a trademark.
9. What does the provision; “Trademark to be for particular goods or services” mean to you?
SAQ 10: Identify appropriate Nice Classes for the following products: (1) watch (2) ice cream (3)
mineral water distribution services (4) coffee shops (5) snow boots.
CHAPTER 4: RIGHTS ARISING FROM TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
4.1. What rights arise from Trademark Registration.
A. The Right to use the trademark. This right entails the first the right of the owner of the mark to
affix it on goods, containers, packaging, labels, etc. or to use it in any other way in relation to the goods
for which it is registered. It means also the right to introduce the goods to the market under the
trademark.
When the trademark owner has launched a product on the market under his mark, he cannot object to further
sales of the product in the course of trade. This is the essence of the so-called principle of exhaustion of the
trademark right. Some countries do not allow objections to parallel imports of products marketed in a foreign
country by the trademark owner or by a third party with his consent. Other countries do allow such parallel
imports to be objected to, namely by applying the principle of territoriality of rights. Still other countries, such
as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, make the decision on whether the trademark owner can object to
parallel imports dependent on whether consumers are likely to be mistaken as to the characteristics or quality
of the imported goods.
AQ5. The registered proprietor of the trademark BUBBLES sells carbonated drinks in returnable and refillable bottles which
bear the mark embossed on them. He discovers that these bottles are being used by a competitor who is filling them with his own
carbonated drinks and refuses to stop doing this, claiming that, because the mark was placed on the bottles by its owner, he is doing
nothing unlawful. Is he right?. What is your understanding of parallel imports and the principle of exhaustion
AQ6. An importer of motor cars made and sold abroad under the trademark AUTOCADE registers the mark in his own
name in cl. 12. Later he starts reconditioning second-hand cars of various makes, including AUTOCADE cars, and registers the
mark in cl. 37 as a service mark. He sells these reconditioned cars as AUTOCADE cars. The foreign manufacturer of new
AUTOCADE cars has no place of business in the importer's country. Can he have either of the two registrations removed?
B. The right to exclude others from using the mark.
It follows from the mark's basic function of distinguishing the goods of its owner from those of others that he
must be able to object to the use of confusingly similar marks in order to prevent consumers and the public in
general from being misled. This is the essence of the exclusive right afforded to the trademark owner by
registration. He must be able to object to any use of his trademark by a third party for goods for which it is
protected, to the affixing of the mark on such goods, to its use in relation to the goods and to the offering of
the goods for sale under the mark, or the use of the mark in advertising, business papers or any other kind of
document (the latter right is subject to certain restrictions-see 6.3 below). Furthermore, since consumers are to
be protected against confusion, protection generally extends to the use of similar trademarks for similar goods,
if such use is likely to confuse the consumer.
The Ugandan law system is more restrictive. The infringement action based on trademark registration is
available only against the use of similar marks for goods that are covered by the trademark registration. If a
competitor uses the trademark for similar goods that are not contained in the list of goods for which the
trademark is registered, the trademark owner must rely on common law (the passing-off action), which will be
dealt with later on.
4.2 Restriction of the exclusive right of a trademark owner
A. Restriction of the exclusive right in the public interest. In the same way as the owner's right to use his trademark
can be restricted by other rights, his right to prevent third parties from using his mark can be restricted
by the legitimate interests of others. The Model Law provides in Section 19 that "Registration of the
mark shall not confer on its registered owner the right to preclude third parties from using bona fide
their names, addresses, pseudonyms, a geographical name, or exact indications concerning the kind,
quality, quantity, destination, value, place of origin, or time of production or of supply, of their goods
and services, in so far as such use is confined to the purposes of mere identification or information
and cannot mislead the public as to the source of the goods or services."
B. Restriction in the form of a disclaimer.
C.
CHAPTER 5. REMOVAL OF THE TRADEMARK FROM THE REGISTER.
An already granted trademark may nonetheless cease to produce effects in three cases: surrender,
declaration of invalidity, declaration of revocation.
A. Surrender.
The owner may decide that he doesn’t need anymore the exclusive right to use the sign in respect of some or
all of the goods or service for which it is registered. In this case, he can declare to the trademarks office his
surrender and ask to have it recorded in the register.
B. Invalidity
A trademark which has been registered despite the existence of one ground for refusal (signs which are not
registrable as trademarks, lack of distinctiveness, deceptiveness, contrast with morality or public policy,
existence of earlier rights of third parties) may be declared invalid.
Assignment: What does the provision under the TMA; Registration in Part A to be conclusive as to validity
after seven years, mean?
C. Revocation for non-use of the trademark
Relevant laws:
Read, review and summarise the following cases.
Cussons New Zealand Pty Ltd vs. Unilever Plc. & Anor [1998] 2 WLR 95
Techno Telecom Ltd vs. Kigalo Investments Ltd Misc. Cause No. 0017 of 2011
The principal consequence of unjustified non-use is that the registration is open to cancellation at the request
of a person with a legitimate interest. There is moreover a tendency to require of the registered owner that he
prove use, since it is very difficult for the interested third party to prove non-use. In the interest of removing
"deadwood" from the register, such reversal of the burden of proof is justified. The burden of proof should be
on the trademark owner not only in cancellation proceedings but also in any other proceedings where the owner
is alleged to have taken advantage of his unused trademark right (opposition procedure, infringement action).
No evidence of use is required for the renewal of a trademark registration, however. This is an administrative
complication which is unnecessary in view of the fact that an interested person can at any time at all take
appropriate action against an unused trademark registration. Non-use does not always lead to invalidation of
the trademark right. Non-use can be justified in the case of force majeure, and any other circumstance that is
not due to fault or negligence on the part of the proprietor of the mark, such as import restrictions or special
legal requirements within the country.
The registration may be cancelled if the obligation to use them is not met without valid reasons. At the same
time trademark owners need a grace period after registration before the use obligation comes into effect. This
is especially true of the many companies that are active in international trade. In order to avoid loopholes in
the protection of their new trademarks of which competitors could take advantage, they must from the very
beginning apply for the registration of their new trademarks in all countries of potential future use. The grace
period granted in in the TMA for a use obligation is three years.
D. Removal for non-payment of renewal fees. Sec. 28, TMA.
A trademark is registered for a certain period of time only. When that period expires, the trademark can be
renewed and a renewal fee has to be paid. If the owner fails to renew his trademark registration and more
specifically fails to pay the renewal fee, this leads to the removal of the trademark from the register.
E. Revocation on grounds of loss of distinctiveness (becomes generic.
A trademark, which was distinctive at the time when it has been registered, may be revoked if at a later point
in time has become generic. Basically, two things can cause genericness: namely, improper use by the owner,
provoking transformation of the mark into a generic term, and improper use by third parties that is tolerated
by the owner. In order to avoid improper use, everyone in the company owning the trademark, who is involved
in advertising or publicizing the brand, must follow some rules.
The basic rule is that the trademark should not be used as, or instead of, the product designation. By
systematically using a product designation in addition to the trademark, the proprietor clearly informs the public
that his mark identifies a specific product as one in a certain category. This is especially important if the
trademark proprietor has invented a totally new product which at the outset is the only one in the category.
248. Trademarks such as ESCALATOR, FRIGIDAIRE, CELLOPHANE and LINOLEUM became generic
terms because they were the only product in their category, and no additional name was given to the category
by its proprietors. When instant coffee, also called soluble coffee, was invented in 1938, the first product
marketed by the company that invented it was called NESCAFÉ. However, from the start the company
systematically used a product designation such as “instant coffee” or “soluble coffee” on its labels to prevent
the so called “genericide”, i.e. the transformation of a mark into a generic term.
A second important rule is that trademarks should always be used as true adjectives and never as nouns, in
other words the trademark should not be used with an article, and the possessive “s” and the plural form should
be avoided. It would be wrong to talk about NESCAFÉ’s flavor or about three NESCAFÉs instead of three
varieties of NESCAFÉ.
Furthermore, it is advisable always to highlight the trademark, that is, to make it stand out from its surroundings.
F. Cancellation on grounds of nullity
If a trademark consists of a sign that should not have been registered, it can be declared null and void by the
court at the request of any interested party.
As a consequence of the declaration, the trademark is removed from the register. If the grounds for invalidity
exist only with respect to some of the registered goods, the registration is removed for those goods only.
Normally, removal from the register is ordered only if the grounds for invalidity already existed when the
trademark was registered. Moreover, even if the trademark should not have been registered owing to lack of
distinctiveness, its cancellation is excluded if in the meantime it has become distinctive by use. Such acquired
distinctiveness cannot however prevent the removal from the register of trademarks that consist of generic or
deceptive terms.
CHAPTER 6: INFRINGEMENT AND PASSING OFF

IUEA _ TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN UGANDA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IUEA _ TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN UGANDA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IUEA _ TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN UGANDA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN UGANDA

IUEA, FACULTY OF LAW; 2020/2021

1. define different types of trademarks and other marks;

1.1 What is a Trademark?

MTN Telecom services

1.3. Certification marks and Other signs

D. Trade or business names

2. REGISTRABLE AND UN-REGISTRABLE MARKS

2.1 Criteria of Registration

c) Restriction on registration of marks on public interest grounds.

d) Prohibition of registration of identical or similar marks. Section 25, TMA.

ASSESMENT QUESTIONS (AQ)

2.2 Protectable subject matter.

ii. Figurative marks: A figurative mark is a mark consisting of:

(In this case, the color lilac is the subject of

D. A sign shall be capable of graphical representation in order to be registered.

2.3. Distinctiveness as a pre-requisite.

ii. Suggestive words.

vi. Names, surnames: Section 1 of TMA, Section 9 of TMA, Section 24 TMA.

2.4. Exclusion from registration: Unregistrable Trademarks.

AQ4: Why are the following trademarks likely to be rejected?

c. “Color Life” for fax machines

iii. Signs contrasting with earlier trademarks;

END OF CHAPTER: ASSIGNMENT 1;

CHAPTER 3: TRDEMARK REGISTRATION IN UGANDA.

3. PROCEDURE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS IN UGANDA.

6. Substantive examination of the application

Absolute grounds for refusal:

Grounds for refusal:

•trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character.

• constitutes a play on words, and/or

• unusual syntactic structures;

EUTM Main function Case No

EUTM No 5 904 438

MORE THAN JUST A

(bank, credit and debit card

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

EUTM No 7 394 414

WE PUT YOU FIRST. AND

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

EUTM Main function Case No

EUTM No 6 173 249

SAVE OUR EARTH

for Classes 3, 17, 18,

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

EUTM Main function Case No

EUTM No 4 885 323

DRINK WATER, NOT

for Classes 32 and 33

EUTM Main function Case No

DREAM IT, DO IT!

EUTM Main function Case No

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

EUTM Main function Case No

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

EUTM Main function Case No

Objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

Examples of accepted slogans

EUTM Classes Case No