http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/emoji-not-trademark-for-euipo-but.html
According
to the decision of 1st June 2023 (original
German version and English
machine translation) by the Board of Appeal (BoA) of the EUIPO, the
emoji meaning “I love you” cannot constitute a trade mark.
Background
of the case
In 2021 a German company filed application No.
18622650 to register the figurative trademark constituted by an emoji
indicating “I love you” in classes 36 (essentially financial
services) and 37 (essentially services in the building construction).
By decision of 18 November 2022 the examiner
refused the application pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and to Article 7(2) EUTMR.
The Examiner based the decision on the following reasons:
i) the relevant consumer (including the
specialist public) would recognise the sign as indicating what is known as an
emoticon/emoji, that is a pictogram that refers to an emotional situation;
ii) the sign applied for consists of a
realistic (common) illustration of a hand sign with a set thumb. It is a
well-known sign that comes from the US sign language and is now internationally
known as an ‘I love you’ hand sign. The hand sign generally shows a right hand,
but there are also variations with a left-hand hand. The relevant public will
therefore simply perceive the sign applied for as a pictogram (emoticon)
without distinctive character;
iii) the sign does not enable the consumer to
distinguish the services of the applicant from those of other undertakings.
The
decision
The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the refusal of the application on the ground of lack of
distinctiveness.
The main function of an emoji is to give
emotional indications that are otherwise lacking in animated entertainment.
Emojis therefore act as a parallel language that conveys nuanced meaning and
facilitates the expression of emotions. They are often associated with positive
communication. As such, they are not generally perceived as an indication of
origin.
The sign in question is perceived as a general
advertising message indicating that consumers will be particularly satisfied
with the services offered under the sign. Consumers therefore merely infer from
the sign a positive connotation of a general nature, either in the sense of an
attractive decoration or in the sense of a general laudatory statement and
incitement to purchase. As a simple representation of a positive gesture, the
sign does not contain anything that would enable the targeted consumer to
perceive it as an indication of the origin of the services.
Comment
It worth recall the history of The Smiley (see The IPKat here)
and an interesting article by WIPO on Emojis
and intellectual property law. In general, emojis can be registered as
a trade mark, as a design or be protected under copyright caw. It is however challenging
for them to display enough creative character because they are basically
visuals that reflect an idea with standardized means of communication. Their
use to represent a concept may be regarded as descriptive
From another perspective, emojis’
interpretation is important because they not only have the potential to lead
you to be misinterpreted but also because they may have a negative legal
repercussion. Like a written text, they convey a sentiment as well as a will
and can serve as proof. If writing may be the principal act, using or adding to
the text images is indeed more critical since the meaning given to them by the
sender can differ from the one seen by the receiver who, additionally, can see
the emoji in a distinctive way.
In this sense, It is interesting to
note that, by decision
of 8th June 2023, the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan
(Canada) ruled that the thumbs-up emoji
“👍” can represent contractual agreement. In March 2021, a grain buyer
announced that the company was looking to purchase 86 tonnes of flax at a
certain price in a bulk text message to customers. During a phone conversation
with a farmer, the buyer sent the picture of a contract for the delivery in
November of flax and asked the farmer “please confirm flax contract”
in a text message. The farmer replied with a thumbs-up emoji. However, the
farmer failed to deliver the flax in November, and by that point, agricultural
prices had risen. The Canadian court bemoaned that the case led the parties to
a far-flung search for the equivalent of the Rosetta Stone in cases from
Israel, New York State, and some tribunals in Canada, etc. to unearth what an
emoji means and at one point referenced a dictionary.com definition of the
symbol. The court added that “Under the circumstances, this was a
permissible manner to transmit the two goals of a signature” even agreeing that
an emoji is a non-traditional means to sign a document. The court also pointed
out that it “cannot (nor should) attempt to stem the tide of technology
and common usage” of emojis in ruling that the thumbs-up can be used to
enter contracts.
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).