Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
something other than a collective mark'. Case R0675/2010-2
133
concerned an
application by a group of farmers for the collective mark 'BIODYNAMIC'.
The term refers to an organic type of agriculture. The application was rejected
and an appeal refused by the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM on the ground
that the application in truth concerned a guarantee or certification in breach of
Art 68(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation as 'the public is liable to
be misled as regards the character or the significance of the mark, in particular if
it is likely to be taken to be something other than a collective mark'.
The OHIM Trade Marks Manual gives as examples of misleading applications
those which mislead as regards the character or the meaning of the mark, in
particular if it is likely to be perceived as something other than a collective mark
and a collective mark which is available for use only by members of an
association which owns the mark which gives the impression that it is available
for use by anyone who is able to meet certain objective standards.
134
6.103
The issue of a misleading application for a Community collective was raised
recently in an application for the mark 'BARCELONA' for all 45 Nice classes,
which authorised persons linked with the city of Barcelona or with its metro-
politan area to use this mark. This was said to be misleading as it excluded
persons with a link to the province of Barcelona.
6.104
(g) Observations by third parties
Article 69 provides that in addition to the opposition procedure provided for in
Art 41, any person, group or body referred to in that Article may submit to the
Office written observations based on the particular grounds on which the
application for a Community collective mark should be refused under the terms
of Art 66.
6.105
The proposed regulation to amend the Community Trade Marks Regulation
proposes the replacement of Art 69 by the following:
6.106
Where written observations on a European collective mark are submitted to the
Agency pursuant to Article 40, those observations may also be based on the particular
grounds on which the application for a European collective mark shall be refused
pursuant to Article 68.
133
Decision of 15 February 2011.
134
Ibid.
