The protection of three-dimensional shapes as trade marks constitutes a
complex issue, which has continually challenged trade mark proprietors, courts and
offices. The application of the absolute ground for refusal in Art. 7(1)(e)(iii)
EUTMR, which precludes shapes that give substantial value to the goods from
registration as a trade mark, is in particular surrounded by legal uncertainty. This is
apparent from the inconsistent examination of three-dimensional shapes by courts
and the EUIPO. This opinion compares the different reasoning of two decisions of
EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal, in which trade marks in the shape of chairs were
purported to add substantial value to the goods in question according to Art.
7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR. Moreover, one of the discussed decisions applies the controversial
CJEU judgment in Tripp-Trapp that vastly broadened the scope of application
for value-conferring shapes. By juxtaposing the incoherent reasoning of the
judgments of the Boards of Appeal, this opinion demonst

EB00000004381K

Available

• Two Eames Chairs, Two Contrary ‘‘Decisions’’