The inherent distinctive character of the contested mark

However, the mark for which registration is sought has inherent distinctive character in 15 Member States.

The view was taken that, even if the trade mark has no inherent distinctive character, the applicant had shown that it had acquired distinctive character following the use made of it.

The view was taken that, even though the trade mark at issue had no inherent distinctive character, the trade mark applicant had shown that it had acquired distinctive character following the use made of it.

The view was taken that, even though the trade mark at issue had no inherent distinctive character, the trade mark applicant had shown that it had acquired distinctive character following the use made of it.

The view was taken that, even if the trade mark has no inherent distinctive character, the applicant had shown that it had acquired distinctive character following the use made of it.

150 In the present case, it is common ground that the mark at issue is inherently devoid of distinctive character throughout the whole of the European Union.

Next, it confirmed the Cancellation Division’s assessment that the mark was inherently devoid of distinctive character (paragraph 22 of the contested decision).

Thus, the Court should have come to the conclusion that the mark has inherent distinctive character or distinctive character acquired through use in most of the European Union.

Bimbo argues that neither the inherent distinctive character nor the degree of meaning of one component of a composite mark should be confused with the distinctive role of that component in the mark.

42 It must therefore be observed that the Board of Appeal was right to find that the element ‘&co.’ has weak distinctive character in the signs in question.

The mark at issue has inherent distinctive character or distinctive character acquired through use for 351 300 000 people in total, which represents 75.4% of the population of the European Union at that date.

– annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal indicated that the contested trade mark was devoid of inherent distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;