The Dyson Case and meaning of "Sign" in Trademarks

Case Name: Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks, THE COURT (Third Chamber),composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur),Judges, JUDGMENT: 25.1.2007

Relevant Facts

Dyson Ltd applied to register two trade marks for a transparent bin or collection chamber, part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner, emphasizing the functional aspect of being able to see the collected dust. The application aimed to cover all conceivable shapes of such a bin, not tied to any specific design or color but focusing on its transparency.

Law Applicable

The case was considered under the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, aimed at approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. Specifically, the interpretation of Article 3(3) of the Directive was in question, which deals with the grounds for refusal or invalidity of trade mark registration, and Article 2, defining what constitutes a sign capable of being registered as a trade mark.

Arguments Advanced

Dyson Ltd: Argued that the transparent collecting bin had become associated with Dyson due to its unique market presence and consumer recognition, thereby acquiring a distinctive character. Dyson contended that the concept of a transparent bin, irrespective of its shape, should be eligible for trade mark registration as it distinguishes their vacuum cleaners from those of competitors.

Registrar of Trade Marks and Opposing Parties: The Registrar and opposing parties argued that the application did not meet the requirement of a sign as defined by the Directive because it related to a concept (the transparency of the bin) rather than a specific, graphically representable sign. They contended that allowing such a broad concept to be registered would grant Dyson an unfair competitive advantage, essentially monopolizing a functional feature rather than distinguishing their products based on brand identity.

Decision of the Court

The CJEU ruled that the subject matter of Dyson's trade mark application did not constitute a "sign" within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive. The Court concluded that the application, aiming to cover all conceivable shapes of a transparent bin, related more to a product feature (transparency) than to a specific sign capable of graphic representation and distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another. Therefore, it could not be registered as a trade mark.

The Court's decision emphasized that a trade mark must be a specific, identifiable sign that can be graphically represented and must serve to distinguish the products or services of one company from those of others. The application by Dyson was found to be too broad and abstract, potentially covering an unlimited number of shapes, and would not allow consumers to perceive it as a specific sign associated with Dyson. As such, granting such a trade mark would provide Dyson with an unfair competitive advantage, contrary to the objective of trade mark law, which is to enable fair competition while allowing companies to build a distinctive brand identity.