- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
EU Court Rules In Favour Of Gym Chain In Tour De France Trademark Battle
EU Court Rules In Favour Of Gym Chain In Tour De France Trademark Battle
French company Societe du Tour de France lost a Trademark Dispute Against a German Gym chain on Wednesday. The Court ruled that consumers were unlikely to confuse the prestigious bicycle race Tour de France with a similar phrase used by the gym chain for its clothing and services.
Societe du Tour de France had contested the decision of the European patent office EUIPO, which allowed FitX to Trademark a Figurative sign "Tour de X" for Various Goods and Services, Including Games, Toys, and Sporting Equipment.
The French company holds rights to the expressions ‘TOUR DE FRANCE’ or ‘LE TOUR DE FRANCE’ for its goods and services. The Tour de France is a renowned annual men's multi-stage bicycle race predominantly held in France.
The General Court in Luxembourg sided with EUIPO on Wednesday and rejected Societe du Tour de France's challenge.
"The public is unlikely to confuse the trademarks despite the goods and services' identity or similarity," judges stated. They emphasized, "The only shared element between the trademarks - 'tour de' - is inherently weak in distinctive character, and the similarity between the marks is minimal."
The court explained that 'tour de' is a descriptive phrase commonly used in cycling competitions and related events, lacking significant distinctive character.
This decision can be appealed on legal grounds to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the highest court in Europe.