关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

乌克兰

UA007-j

返回

Decision of the Supreme Court case № 910/13105/21 of 20.08.2024

Case № 910/13105/21

Plaintiff: Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.

Defendant: State organization “Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations

Lawsuit re: recognition of the decisions as unlawful, cancellation and obligation to perform actions.

 

On August 20, 2024, the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court considered a case where Wizz Air Hungary Zrt. filed a lawsuit against the State organization “Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations”. The plaintiff sought to overturn the Office's decision to refuse registration of the pink color (Pantone 233) as a trademark for air passenger transport services.

The lawsuit was based on Wizz Air's claim that the pink color had acquired distinctiveness through prolonged and substantial use in the market. The Intellectual Property Office, however, rejected the application, citing the color’s lack of distinctiveness as a stand-alone mark.

The Commercial Court of first instance ruled in favor of Wizz Air, accepting that the color had developed distinctiveness. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, arguing that the pink color had always been used alongside other elements like the "Wizz" name and additional colors, which diluted the distinctiveness of the pink color on its own.

The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, emphasizing that color trademarks must meet strict standards of distinctiveness under Ukrainian law. The court concluded that the pink color, in the context of Wizz Air’s branding, was not independently distinctive enough to qualify for trademark protection. The Court supported the lower court’s view that Wizz Air's use of the color in combination with other elements meant it could not function alone as a trademark for the specified services.

The Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed the importance of distinctiveness in trademark law, especially concerning color trademarks. The Court carefully analyzed the legal requirements, emphasizing that a color, to be registered as a trademark, must clearly distinguish the goods or services of one entity from others. In this case, the pink color alone did not meet these criteria. The Court also highlighted that businesses must demonstrate that their use of a color has achieved distinctiveness in the minds of consumers without relying on other visual or textual elements.

This ruling sets a significant precedent in Ukrainian trademark law regarding the registration of non-traditional marks, such as colors. It emphasizes the need for clear, independent distinctiveness of a trademark and provides guidance on how courts will evaluate such cases. The decision illustrates the high threshold for proving that a color, by itself, can function as a trademark, influencing future cases involving non-traditional trademarks in Ukraine.