Dyson had made and sold bagless vaccum cleaners since 1993.
Sought to register trademark of: “a transparent bin or collection chamber forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner as shown in the representation” (image attached to application).
High Court took view that illustrations were entirely descriptive of product. Then made a preliminary reference to ECJ on issue of distinctiveness; however ECJ ignored this question, and instead chose to answer question of whether subject matter of application was in fact capable of registration at all.
Subject matter of case is not a particular type of transparent bin or collection chamber.
Rather it is all the conceivable shapes of such a bin or collection chamber.
Thus the sign sought to be registered is a mere property of product concerned
Hence does not constitute a ‘sign’ for purposes of Article 2.
Were someone to be given trademark relating to non-specific subject matter, would gain an unfair competitive advantage.
I.e. as they would be able to prevent competitors designing vacuum cleaners with any sort of transparent collection bin on its external surface, regardless of its shape.
This would be contrary to purpose of Article 2.
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Intellectual Property Law | Trade Mark Case Law Notes (68 pages) |
Intellectual Property Law | Trade Marks Notes (30 pages) |
Intellectual Property Law | Trademarks 1 Cases (9 pages) |