- 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
- AI
- 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
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
European Court of Justice Declares Batman Logo Distinctive in Trademark Lawsuit
European Court of Justice Declares Batman Logo Distinctive in Trademark Lawsuit
DC Comic’s Batman has won a trademark battle against an Italian clothing retailer after Europe’s second-top Court sided with the European Union (EU) patent office, ruling that the Batman logo is distinctive enough to warrant its EU Trademark.
The verdict was passed by a European Court in Luxembourg which ruled, “The General Court hereby first, dismisses the action second orders Mr. Luigi Aprile and Commerciale Italiana to pay the cost.”
DC Comics had registered the logo with the EU more than two decades ago, however it got embroiled in a challenge contended from an Italian designer who wanted to use the symbol on clothing and carnival goods.
In 2019, the company Commerciale Italiana Srl filed an application with EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity of that trade mark. The application, regarding certain classes of goods, such as clothing and carnival items, was rejected by EUIPO, first by its Cancellation Division then by its Board of Appeal: EUIPO considered that, in the evidence submitted to it, the Batman character was always associated with its publisher and that it had not been shown that consumers had associated that trade mark with another origin.
However, the attempt to invalidate DC Comics trademark on clothing, which the comic creator has held for just over 25 years was unsuccessful, as the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, that “the evidence submitted to the General Court is not sufficient to show that the EU trade mark representing a bat in an oval surround was devoid of distinctive character”.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the mere fact that that trade mark is associated with a fictitious character, that is, Batman, does not, in itself, made it possible to rule out that that trade mark could also be served as an indication of the origin of the goods in question.
Lastly, regarding the allegedly descriptive character of the trade mark, the Court rejected the argument made by the company Commerciale Italiana and by Mr. Aprile that the trade mark describes one of the characteristics of the goods, on the ground that the Batman character cannot be depicted without that trade mark.
According to the Court, the company Commerciale Italiana and Mr. Aprile had failed to submit sufficient reasons as to why the trade mark was capable of describing the characteristics of the Batman character and, a fortiori, those of the goods in question.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Batman logo.