The Israel Patent Law 1967 is unequivocal in that three dimensional trademarks are registerable.
In the past, attempts to register the shape of objects and containers as trademarks was frowned upon by the Israel Patent and Trademark Office. Then, in 11487/03 August Storck KG vs. Alfa Intuit Food Products LTD, the Supreme Court ruled that the shape of the distinctive Toffiffee toffee and chocolate coated hazelnut snack could be registered as a design.
Since then, there have been a number of rulings (for and against) concerning trademark applications for distinctive packaging, particularly for liquor and perfume bottles, and for various other objects such as Rubik’s cube.
The Israel Patent Office has now published a Commissioner’s Circular (no 032/2015) that attempts to provide clarity to this issue.
Essentially, three dimensional packaging or product shape should be protected with design registrations.
Consequently, inherent distinctiveness is insufficient grounds for registration. However:
- if the three dimensional image serves as a trademark,
- is not significantly aesthetic or functional, and,
- through use, has acquired distinctiveness, it may be registered.
Since trademark registration does not provide protection to different elements of a composite mark, if a three dimensional representation includes the company’s name prominently, this may be used to enable registration without consideration of the three requirements above.
If allowable, the fact that the image is three dimensional will be stated.
The Circular comes into immediate effect and cancels previous circular MN 61, from 29 April 2008.
As guidelines, these are very sensible. However, one imagines there will be lots of arguments as to whether in specific cases, a three dimensional image serves as a trademark or not. Whether something is ‘significantly aesthetic or functional’ leaves a lot of grey areas, and the concept of acquired distinctiveness is also a difficult issue to quantify.
Substantially functional marks are related to in a decision concerning rifle sights. In a controversial ruling, the Rubik Cube was registered. In another ruling that I was less than happy with, the Crocs beach clog was registered.
Many rulings relate to bottle designs. For example the Kremlyovskaya vodka bottle, Energy Brands, Contreau, Fanta and Absolut Vodka. Also see here. Rulings for other containers include one for a cigarette box.
I suspect that we haven’t heard the last word on this subject.