Unfortunately, the EUIPO rejected the application, stating that the trademark in question was descriptive. Despite the appeal, the EUIPO Board of Appeal reiterated the same arguments and upheld the decision.
However, the Austrian company disagreed with this ruling and decided to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its complaint, it argued that the EUIPO had incorrectly focused solely on the verbal element of the trademark, while neglecting the graphic elements. According to the applicant company, it is the graphic element that gives the trademark its distinctive character, which potential customers would undoubtedly associate exclusively with the company “bet-at-home”.
When assessing the case, the EU Court observed that graphical elements such as underlining typically serve only to emphasize a particular phrase or word. Moreover, the mere use of an arc in its adopted form is very simple and may be perceived by recipients only as a decorative element. Also, the color green is not distinctive here, as it is often used for marketing purposes.
Consequently, the verbal element of the disputed mark, namely “bet-at-home,” simply means “betting at home,” which fully corresponds to the description of the service offered by the applicant company. The use of hyphens, a different font color, and underlining, or even bolding, does not change this. As a result, the EU Court agreed with the arguments of EUIPO, i.e., that the disputed mark does not have a distinctive character that would allow it to be registered.
In light of the above, by its judgment of June 29, 2022 (case no. T-640/21), the Court of the European Union dismissed the appeal.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
