GC and CJEU have so far avoided a general definition of a lack of distinctiveness in connection with word marks and instead resorted to the indication-of-origin function and public interest. In this respect, the assessment did not differ in the end for word marks from the assessment of the ground for refusal of the indication describing characteristics. Ultimately, therefore, in practice for word marks the ground for refusal of protection due to a lack of distinctiveness more or less serves no purpose.^[1]
The sign ‘Companyline’ lacked any distinctiveness for insurance and finance, since it consists exclusively of the two terms ‘company’ and ‘line’ that are common in English-speaking countries. The term ‘company’ indicates that the labelled products are intended for companies. The word ‘line’ can refer to a product category or group.^[2] In the financial sector, the trade mark ‘EUROHYPO’ was also found to be devoid of any distinctive character. The relevant public understands the sign as referring to mortgage loans paid in the currency of the European Economic and Monetary Union. Furthermore, there is no additional element that would suggest that the combination of the common and customary components ‘EURO’ and ‘HYPO’ is unusual or has acquired its own meaning to distinguish the financial services of one company from those of another. The relevant public therefore does not perceive the designation as an indication of the origin of these services, but as information about the type of services it designates.^[3] The signs ‘P@YWEB CARD’ and ‘PAYWEB CARD’ were also found to be non-distinctive for various goods and services in the fields of electronics, real estate, finance and telecommunications,^[4] as was the trade mark ‘DIAMOND CARD’ for insurance and financial services.^[5] Furthermore, the sign ‘Trustedlink’ was also found to be devoid of distinctive character in the area of e-commerce as an indication of a link that can be trusted.^[6] ‘Investorword’ was found to be devoid of distinctive character for goods in the financial sector^[7] and ‘ROMANTIK’ for travel and hotel services.^[8] ‘€$’ was understood by the public in connection with various media as an indication of their finance-related content.^[9] The same applied to “DigiFilm” and “DigiFilmMaker” in the film industry^[10] and to the name ’TWIST & POUR’ (= to turn & pour) for a paint container that could have a rotatable lid.^[11] Furthermore, the trade mark ‘PharmaCheck’ for electronic devices that could be used to check pharmaceuticals lacked any distinctive character.^[12] In contrast, the trade mark ‘SAT.2’ for satellite-related services was distinctive. The element ‘SAT’ may be the usual abbreviation for satellite, and the number ‘2’ as well as the element ‘.’ may be commonly used in the course of trade. However, the frequent use in the telecommunications sector of trade marks that consist of a word element and a number element shows that combinations of this kind cannot, in principle, be denied distinctiveness.^[13] The trade marks ‘EUROCOOL’ in the transport sector,^[14] ‘TELE AID’ in connection with remote data and voice transmission as well as for navigation devices^[15] and ‘I. T.@MANPOWER’ for employment services^[16] were also distinctive.