The various grounds for refusal must be interpreted in the light of the public interest underlying each of them.[1] This public interest to be taken into account in the examination of the individual grounds for refusal may or even must be expressed in different considerations depending on the ground for refusal.[2] Which public interest is affected in each case varies from one ground for refusal to another, with overlaps.[3] However, there is no standard of scrutiny that varies from one ground for refusal to another.[4]
For example, the prohibition of descriptive indications essentially serves to protect competitors, who should remain free to use such indications.[5] The prohibition of customary designations also serves such a need for freedom of use.[6] In contrast, the prohibition of the registration of state flags is intended to prevent public state emblems from being exploited for commercial purposes.[7]
Footnotes
CJEU C-299/99 of 18 June 2002 Philips/Remington, ref. 77; CJEU C-53/01 to C-55/01 of 8 April 2003 Linde, ref. 71; CJEU C-104/01 of 6 May 2003 Libertel, ref. 51; CJEU C-363/99 of 12 February 2004 Postkantoor, ref. 68 and 94; CJEU C-265/00 of 12 February 2004 Campina Melde, ref. 12.2.2004 Campina Melkunie, ref. 34; CJEU C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P of 29.4.2004 Three dimensional tablet shape I, ref. 45; CJEU C-49/02 of 24.6.2004 Heidelberger Bauchemie, ref. 41; CJEU C-329/02 P of 16.9.2004 SAT.2, ref. 25; CJEU C-37/03 P of 15.9.2005 BioID, ref. 59; CJEU C-173/04 P of 12.1.2006 Deutsche SiSi-Werke, ref. 59; CJEU C-273/05 P of 19.4.2007 HABM/Celltech, ref. 74; CJEU C-304/06 P of 8 May 2008 Eurohypo, ref. 55; CJEU C-48/09 P of 14 September 2010 Lego Juris, ref. 43; CJEU C-90/11 and C-91/11 of 15 March 2012 Strigl, ref. 22; CJEU C-337/12 P of 6 March 2014 Pi-Design and Others, para. 44; CJEU C-205/13 of 18 September 2014 Hauck/Stokke, para. 17; CJEU C-215/14 of 6 September 2015 Société des Produits Nestlé, para. 43; CJEU C-30/15 P of 10 November 2016 Simba Toys, para. 38; CJEU C-124/18 P of 29 July 2019 Red Bull, para. 65; EFTA Court E-5/16 of 8 April 2017 Municipality of Oslo, para. 45.
↩CJEU C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P of 29 April 2004 Three dimensional tablet shape I, ref. 46; CJEU C-329/02 P of 16 September 2004 SAT.2, ref. 25; CJEU C-37/03 P of 15.9.2005 BioID, ref. 59; CJEU C-173/04 P of 12.1.2006 Deutsche SiSi-Werke, ref. 59; CJEU C-304/06 P of 8.5.2008 Eurohypo, ref. 55; CJEU C-90/11 and C-91/11 of 15.3.2012 Strigl, ref. 22.
↩See CJEU C-363/99 of 12 February 2004 Postkantoor, ref. 68; also CJEU C-20/14 of 22 October 2015 BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft, ref. 25; BGH I ZB 59/12 of 6 November 2013 Smartbook, ref. 17.
↩BGH I ZB 58/12 of 6 November 2013, ref. 17; I ZB 59/12 of 6 November 2013 Smartbook, ref. 17.
↩CJEU C-104/01 of 6 May 2003 Libertel, ref. 52; CJEU C-191/01 P of 23 October 2003 Doublemint, ref. 31; CJEU C-363/99 of 12 February 2004 Postkantoor, ref. 54 and 95; CJEU C-265/00 of 12 February 2004 Campina Melkunie, ref. 35, in each case with reference to CJEU C-108/97 and C-109/97 of 4 May 1999 Chiemsee, ref. 5.1999 Chiemsee, para. 25; CJEU C-53/01 to C-55/01 of 8.4.2003 Linde, para. 73; CJEU C-139/16 of 6.7.2017 Moreno Marín, para. 23; CJEU C-488/16 P of 6.9.2018 Bundesverband Souvenir - Geschenke - Ehrenpreise, para. 36; also CJEU C-218/01 of 12.2.2004 Henkel, para. 41.
↩CJEU C-102/07 of 10 April 2008 adidas and adidas Benelux, ref. 23.
↩Ströbele/Hacker/Thiering-Ströbele, § 8 para. 848.
↩