The definition of “generic”, “necessary”, “common”, “vulgar” and “descriptive” signs and why are they not registrable as a trademark in Brazil.

Businessman stamping with approved stamp on document at meeting.

In Brazil, the Industrial Property Law (L. 9.279 / 96) prohibits, by means of its article 124, VI, the registration of trademarks that consist of signs of a generic, necessary, common, vulgar or descriptive character in relation to products or services they want to distinguish.

The principle of distinctiveness is a fundamental condition for a trademark, that is, the assessment by the BRPTO (INPI) takes into account the distinctive capacity of the expression under examination. The prohibition on registering expressions considered as non-distinctive is for the simple reason that such elements will not be seen as a trademark by the consumer. In addition, allowing owners to have trademarks composed of a common sign to exist would generate an unfair monopoly.

The trademark manual (created by the BPTO) defines the types of non-registerable signs:

  • Generic sign is a “term or nominative expression or its graphic representation that (without being necessary in relation to the product or service or indicative of nature, nationality, weight, value, quality and time of production or service provision) designates the category, the species or the genre to which a given product or service belongs, and cannot individualize it, under penalty of violating the right of competitors.” As an example, “FOOD” to indicate food products;
  • Necessary sign is a “term or nominative expression or the indispensable figurative element to designate or represent the product or service, or even its inputs.” As an example, “OLIVE OIL” to indicate olive oils;
  • Common character sign is a “term or nominative expression or figurative element that, although it does not correspond to the name or representation by which the product or service was originally identified, has been enshrined, for current use, for this purpose, integrating, thus, the commercial language.” As an example, “CAR” to indicate cars;
  • Vulgar sign is composed of a “Slang, popular or family names that also identify a product or service.” 

Businessman stamping with approved stamp on document at meeting.

However, there is an exception  regarding the registration of generic, common, vulgar or descriptive trademarks:

Art. 124. The following cannot be registered as a trademark:

VI – a sign of a generic, necessary, common, vulgar or simply descriptive character, when related to the product or service to be distinguished, or that commonly used to designate a characteristic of the product or service, as to its nature, nationality, weight, value, quality and time of production or service provision, unless they are sufficiently distinctive.

Such a reservation allows generic, necessary, common, vulgar or descriptive terms to be registered in case they are sufficiently distinctive. That is, these non-distinctive terms can be registered if they are accompanied, for example, by a sufficiently distinctive logo. 

Thus, art. 124, VI ​​serves to prohibit a holder from preventing his competitors from using terms directly related to products and services. However, it still allows owners who use these types of expressions, accompanied by a sufficiently distinctive logo to have the trademark registered. 

Author: Laís Iamauchi de Araujo, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Manual de Marcas 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The importance of the evidence in a claim of trademark distinctiveness

Priority examination for patent applications in Brazil

In a recent decision, the Norwegian Board of Appeals confirmed the rejection decision issued by the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) and declined Facebook’s claim to register the WhatsApp Logo for a variety of products and services, such as software and telecommunication services. This decision is surprising, not just based on the insertion of this logo as a mark in the world’s routine, but also because it may be the result of failure of the evidence submitted to support the trademark distinctiveness.

The Norwegian Board of Appeals sustained that the trademark was unable to function as a “symbol of commercial origin”, and that its level of distinctiveness was deemed insufficient to be registered as a trademark, confirming the NIPO’s rejection decision.

It is unthinkable that Facebook would have a hard time proving the distinctiveness of the WhatsApp’s logo, since we as consumers immediately connect this symbol to its products and services as soon as we see it anywhere. Therefore, what comes to our mind is that the gathering of evidence in this case was not as careful as the circumstances required. 

Therefore, this situation clearly shows that the investment in marketing, publicity and sales should not be the only focus a company should have to build a strong and valuable trademark, it is likewise of great importance to care about all legal aspects that involve the protection of that mark.

The owner of a trademark that has its distinctiveness challenged shall not rely only on the supposed fame and large recognition of the sign, instead sufficient time and effort should also be devoted to gather evidence of the dissemination of the sign in the relevant market. The proof of distinctiveness can be, in some cases, as important as the distinctiveness itself. 

The failure of proving a mark is registrable and has – or has acquired by virtue of extensive use – sufficient distinctiveness could be, in the end, disastrous to the business results as a whole, especially if the company has already put a lot of effort and money to establish the sign in the market and to connect to its products and/or services. 

In the worst-case scenario, all the investment already made in a mark might be in vain if the necessary legal care is not taken properly.

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Gabriela Miranda

Source

Headline: Bad news for WhatsApp as Norwegian Board of Appeal refuses to register logo

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”