26049 OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Company

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, 10 April 2003, Community Trade Mark Regulation, Art 7(1)(c); Trade Mark Directive, Art 3(1)(c) – correct interpretation of Art 7(1)(c) – DOUBLEMINT for eg chewing gum – whether ‘Baby-Dry’ case misunderstood – whether compound word designated characteristics of product – number of possible meanings – double flavour or two different mint flavours – unusual syntactical juxtaposition of components – analysis of case law, including ‘Windsurfing Chiemsee’ – meaning of ‘consists exclusively of’ – public interest in keeping marks available for competitors – proposed threefold test – the way the term related to the product, the way in which term perceived

Background

The court had been asked to rule once more on the correct interpretation of CTMR Art 7(1)(c), following its earlier judgment in the Baby-Dry case, in which it held that a brand name consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate characteristics of the relevant product could not be registered.