Mercedes radiator grille found to be distinctive

What has happened?

• The EUIPO Board of Appeal has found that Mercedes' radiator grille is sufficiently distinctive for registration as a trade mark. 

• The specific combination of a mesh-like structure with a circular element inserted into a central strip with tapering ends creates a figurative effect that differs significantly from other radiator grille designs. 

• This decision is significant for manufacturers seeking to protect distinctive design elements of their vehicles as trade marks. 

Want to know more?

Mercedes-Benz applied in 2023 to register the following figurative mark for goods in classes 12 (radiator grilles) and 28 (games and toys).

The application was partially refused, in relation to class 12, with the examiner finding that the mark lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, as it did not significantly differ from standard radiator grilles.

Mercedes appealed the decision. They appealed on a number of grounds, including that the sign was made up of striking stars which were distinctive as they were existing trade marks, and that the stars structure significantly differed from other grilles with honeycomb or trellis structures, in the sector. 

The Board confirmed that, for signs that depict the appearance of a product to be distinctive, they need to significantly depart from the norms and customs of the sector. 

The Board supported the rejection of Mercedes' argument that the mesh-like structure by itself was distinctive, but found that the combination of the elements in the figurative mark produced an impression on consumers that would allow them to distinguish the radiator grille from that of competitors. 

What does this mean for you?

The decision is also good news for brand owners who want to protect aspects of their products. It suggests that the "differs from the norms and customs of the sector" wording can sometimes be interpreted reasonably liberally. Radiator grilles continue to be key brand identifiers for car manufacturers with even electric cars having them. This might also have been a factor affecting the Board's decision in this case.

In this series:

• Getty v Stability: the trade mark ruling

• Getty v Stability: the copyright ruling

• Testarossa: easier to prove genuine use of legacy brands?

• easyGroup v Premier Inn: Court rejects family of marks monopoly and clarifies section 10(3) protection