European Justice endorses the registration of the Chinese brand Bymbis despite Bimbo’s appeal

Bimbo already presented a previous appeal that was rejected by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) when it considered that the signs in conflict were, “at most, moderately similar to graphic and phonetic leveland that they were not similar on a conceptual level.

The EUIPO also pointed out that, given the divergence between the products of both brands, the Spanish public would not associate them and would not be influenced by the popularity of Bimbo when you saw products designated by the Bimbys brand. Therefore, it ruled out that the use of this could take undue advantage of Bimbo’s distinctive character or the notoriety that the brand has acquired among Spanish consumers.

In its ruling this Wednesday, the General Court confirms the assessment of the EUIPO because, although the difference between the signs is located at the end of them, this difference is notable enough to estimate that they only present a medium degree of visual and phonetic similarity. . The ruling also rejects Bimbo’s claim that the products have the same nature because they are cheap and commonly consumed products since, as the EUIPO pointed out, bread, a product for which the Bimbo brand is renowned, has no relation to the contested Bimbys productssince none of them are related to the field of cooking.

The General Court has also rejected the argument that these products share the same distribution channels, since, although they can be sold in supermarkets, this It is not decisive because they will be offered to customers in very different sections.

Bimbo’s second resource

The European Justice has also rejected this Wednesday a second appeal by Grupo Bimbo against the EUIPO decision to deny registration of a three-dimensional cookie trademark on the grounds that it did not have a distinctive character, since the symbol was simply a photograph of a round cookie with edges of oval rings. The TGUE has also supported this EUIPO resolution and points out that the aforementioned trademark consists of the shape of a circular cookie that “does not deviate significantly from basic cookie shapes” and that “its shape reproduces the traditional shape of commercialized cookies.”

The ruling adds that, even assuming that the public identified these features as relevant, the truth is that they constitute “simple and purely ornamental or decorative forms”, so that they are not sufficiently characteristic or relevant to confer Bimbo a minimum degree of distinctive character, as stated by the EUIPO.

The General Court considers that these forms will be perceived as “merely common variations of the traditional cookie shape”but not as an indication of the commercial origin of the products and therefore supports the decision of the EUIPO, which correctly considered that the shape represented by the trademark whose registration Grupo Bimbo requested did not differ significantly from the uses of the sector, and that it was nothing more than a variant of the usual shape of a cookie, so it lacked distinctive character.