JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

In Case C-104/01,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Libertel Groep BV

and

Benelux-Merkenbureau,

on the interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1),

THE COURT,

composed of […]

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 November 2002,

gives the following

Judgment

1.

By order of 23 February 2001, received at the Court on 5 March 2001, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC four questions on the interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1, hereinafter 'the Directive').

2.

Those questions were raised in proceedings between Libertel Groep BV (hereinafter 'Libertel') and the Benelux-Merkenbureau (Benelux Trade Mark Office, hereinafter 'the BTMO') relating to the refusal by the latter to register the colour orange as a trade mark for telecommunications goods and services, as requested by Libertel.

Legal background

Paris Convention

3.

Trade-mark law is governed at international level by the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, as last revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 (United Nations Treaties Series, No 11851, vol. 828, p. 305, hereinafter 'the Paris Convention'). All the Member States are signatories to the Convention.

4.

Article 6 quinquies B(2) of the Paris Convention provides that trade marks may be denied registration or invalidated when they are devoid of any distinctive character.

5.

Article 6 quinquies C(1) of the Paris Convention provides as follows:

'In determining whether a mark is eligible for protection, all the factual circumstances must be taken into consideration, particularly the length of time the mark has been in use.'

Community legislation

6.

Article 2 of the Directive, entitled 'Signs of which a trade mark may consist', provides as follows:

'A trade mark may consist of any sign capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.'

7.

Article 3(1) and (3) of the Directive, headed 'Grounds for refusal or invalidity', provides as follows:

'1. The following shall not be registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid:

(a) signs which cannot constitute a trade mark;

(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;

(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service;

(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade;

(e) signs which consist exclusively of:

- the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, or

- the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, or

- the shape which gives substantial value to the goods;

...

3. A trade mark shall not be refused registration or be declared invalid in accordance with paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) if, before the date of application for registration and following the use which has been made of it, it has acquired a distinctive character. Any Member State may in addition provide that this provision shall also apply where the distinctive character was acquired after the date of application for registration or after the date of registration.'

8.

Article 6 of the Directive provides as follows:

'1. The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade,

(a) his own name or address;

(b) indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of goods or services;

(c) the trade mark where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts;

provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

2. The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, an earlier right which only applies in a particular locality if that right is recognised by the laws of the Member State in question and within the limits of the territory in which it is recognised.'

Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks

9.

The Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands have set down their trade-mark laws in a common piece of legislation, the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks (Trb. 1962, 58), which was amended with effect from 1 January 1996 by the Protocol of 2 December 1992 amending that law (Trb. 1993, 12) to implement the Directive in the legal order of those three Member States.

10.

Article 6bis of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks, as amended, (hereinafter 'the UBL') provides as follows:

'1. The Benelux Trade Mark Office shall refuse to register a filing where it considers that:

(a) the sign filed does not constitute a trade mark within the meaning of Article 1, in particular because it lacks any distinctive character, as provided for in Article 6 quinquies B(2) of the Paris Convention;

(b) the filing relates to a trade mark referred to in Article 4(1) and (2).

2. The refusal to register must relate to the sign that constitutes the trade mark in its entirety. It may be confined to one or more of the goods for which the mark is intended to be used.

3. The Benelux Office shall inform the applicant without delay and in writing of its intention to refuse registration in whole or in part, shall state the grounds and shall allow him a right to respond within a period of time to be laid down in an implementing regulation.

4. If the objections of the Benelux Office to registration have not been removed within the period granted, registration of the filing shall be refused in whole or in part. The Benelux Office shall notify the applicant without delay and in writing, stating the grounds for refusal and advising of the remedy, set out in Article 6ter, against the decision.

5. Refusal to register a filing for all the goods, or some of them, shall render the filing invalid in whole or in part. Invalidity shall not be effective until the time-limit for bringing an appeal under Article 6ter has expired without an appeal being brought, or until the application for an order to register has been irrevocably refused.'

11.

Article 6ter of the UBL provides as follows:

'The applicant may, within two months following notification under Article 6bis(4), file at the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, the Gerechtshof at The Hague or the Cour d'Appel, Luxembourg, an application for an order that the filing be registered. The applicant's address, that of his representative, or the postal address given upon filing shall determine which court has territorial jurisdiction.'

The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

12.

Libertel is a company established in the Netherlands whose principal activity is the supply of mobile telecommunications services.

13.

The BTMO is the competent authority with regard to trade marks for the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Since 1 January 1996 the BTMO has had responsibility for examining filings of trade marks in the light of the absolute grounds for refusal.

14.

On 27 August 1996 Libertel filed with the BTMO an orange colour as a trade mark for certain telecommunications goods and services comprising, as regards goods in Class 9, telecommunications equipment, and in respect of services in Classes 35 to 38, the telecommunications services and physical, financial and technical management of telecommunications systems.

15.

In the space for reproducing the trade mark, the application form contained an orange rectangle and, in the space for describing the trade mark, the word 'orange' without reference to any colour code.

16.

By letter of 21 February 1997 the BTMO informed Libertel that it was provisionally refusing registration of the sign. It considered that unless Libertel could show that the sign filed, consisting exclusively of the colour orange, had acquired distinctive character through use, it was devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 6bis(1)(a) of the UBL.

17.

Libertel objected to that provisional refusal. The BTMO, taking the view that there was no need to reconsider the refusal, served notice of final refusal by letter of 10 September 1997.

18.

Pursuant to Article 6ter of the UBL, Libertel appealed against that refusal before the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) (Netherlands), which was dismissed by judgment of 4 June 1998.

19.

On 3 August 1998 Libertel appealed in cassation to the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.

20.

In the course of the Hoge Raad's examination of the dispute, questions arose as to the correct application of Article 6bis(1)(a) of the UBL, and consequently also as to the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive. Accordingly, by order of 23 February 2001, the Hoge Raad referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

'(1) Is it possible for a single specific colour which is represented as such or is designated by an internationally applied code to acquire a distinctive character for certain goods or services within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

(a) in what circumstances may it be accepted that a single specific colour possesses a distinctive character in the sense used above?

(b) does it make any difference if registration is sought for a large number of goods and/or services, rather than for a specific product or service, or category of goods or services respectively ?

(3) In the assessment of the distinctive character of a specific colour as a trade mark, must account be taken of whether, with regard to that colour, there is a general interest in availability, such as can exist in respect of signs which denote a geographical origin?

(4) When considering the question whether a sign, for which registration as a trade mark is sought, possesses the distinctive character referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, must the Benelux Trade Mark Office confine itself to an assessment in abstracto of distinctive character or must it take account of all the actual facts of the case, including the use made of the sign and the manner in which the sign is used?'

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Preliminary considerations

21.

The questions referred, which concern Article 3 of the Directive, relate to whether, and if so in what circumstances, a colour per se, not spatially defined, is capable of possessing distinctive character for certain goods or services.

22.

In order to consider those questions it is necessary as a preliminary matter to determine whether a colour per se is capable of constituting a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the Directive.

23.

To that end, the colour must satisfy three conditions. First, it must be a sign. Secondly, that sign must be capable of graphic representation. Thirdly, the sign must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

24.

The Council of the European Union and the Commission made a joint declaration, entered in the minutes of the Council meeting on the adoption of the Directive, that they 'consider that Article 2 does not exclude the possibility ... of registering as a trade mark a combination of colours or a single colour ... provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings' (OHIM OJ No 5/96, p. 607).

25.

However, that declaration cannot be used to interpret a provision of secondary legislation where, as in this case, no reference is made to the content thereof in the wording of the provision in question and it therefore has no legal significance (Cases C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, paragraph 18, and C-329/95 VAG Sverige [1997] ECR I-2675, paragraph 23). The Council and the Commission also explicitly recognised that limitation in the preamble to their declaration, which states as follows: 'Since the following statements of the Council and the Commission are not part of the legal text they are without prejudice to the interpretation of that text by the Court of Justice of the European Communities'.

26.

Accordingly, it is for the Court to determine whether Article 2 of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that a colour per se is capable of constituting a trade mark.

27.

In that regard it must be pointed out that a colour per se cannot be presumed to constitute a sign. Normally a colour is a simple property of things. Yet it may constitute a sign. That depends on the context in which the colour is used. None the less, a colour per se is capable, in relation to a product or service, of constituting a sign.

28.

Furthermore, as the Court has held, a graphic representation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive must enable the sign to be represented visually, particularly by means of images, lines or characters, so that it can be precisely identified (Case C-273/00 Sieckmann [2002] ECR I-0000, paragraph 46).

29.

In order to fulfil its function, the graphic representation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive must be clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective (Sieckmann, paragraphs 47 to 55).

30.

In this case the query referred to the Court relates to an application to register a colour per se, represented by a sample of the colour on a flat surface, a description in words of the colour and/or an internationally recognised colour identification code.

31.

A mere sample of a colour does not, however, satisfy the requirements set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 of this judgment.

32.

In particular a sample of a colour may deteriorate with time. There may be certain media on which it is possible to reproduce a colour in permanent form. However with other media, including paper, the exact shade of the colour cannot be protected from the effects of the passage of time. In these cases, the filing of a sample of a colour does not possess the durability required by Article 2 of the Directive (see Sieckmann, paragraph 53).

33.

It follows that filing a sample of a colour does not per se constitute a graphic representation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive.

34.

On the other hand, a verbal description of a colour, in so far as it is composed of words which themselves are made up of letters, does constitute a graphic representation of the colour (see Sieckmann, paragraph 70).

35.

A description in words of the colour will not necessarily satisfy the conditions set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 of this judgment in every instance. That is a question which must be evaluated in the light of the circumstances of each individual case.

36.

A sample of a colour, combined with a description in words of that colour, may therefore constitute a graphic representation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive, provided that the description is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, and objective.

37.

For the same reasons as those set out at paragraph 34 of this judgment, the designation of a colour using an internationally recognised identification code may be considered to constitute a graphic representation. Such codes are deemed to be precise and stable.

38.

Where a sample of a colour, together with a description in words, does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 2 of the Directive in order for it to constitute a graphic representation because, inter alia, it lacks precision or durability, that deficiency may, depending on the facts, be remedied by adding a colour designation from an internationally recognised identification code.

39.

As to the question whether a colour per se is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive, it is necessary to determine whether or not colours per se are capable of conveying specific information, in particular as to the origin of a product or service.

40.

In that connection, it must be borne in mind that, whilst colours are capable of conveying certain associations of ideas, and of arousing feelings, they possess little inherent capacity for communicating specific information, especially since they are commonly and widely used, because of their appeal, in order to advertise and market goods or services, without any specific message.

41.

However, that factual finding would not justify the conclusion that colours per se cannot, as a matter of principle, be considered to be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. The possibility that a colour per se may in some circumstances serve as a badge of origin of the goods or services of an undertaking cannot be ruled out. It must therefore be accepted that colours per se may be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive.

42.

It follows from the foregoing that, where the conditions described above apply, a colour per se is capable of constituting a trade mark within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive.

43.

It is in the light of the considerations set out at paragraphs 22 to 42 of this judgment that it is now possible to examine the questions referred for a preliminary ruling.

The third question

44.

It is appropriate first of all to examine the third question, by which the national court is asking whether, in assessing the potential distinctiveness of a specific colour as a trade mark, it is necessary to consider whether there is a general interest in that colour remaining available to all, as is the case with respect to signs which designate a geographical origin.

45.

According to a number of the observations submitted to the Court, it is possible, using current technology, to identify a very wide range of shades of colour. That may be true, but it is irrelevant to the question under consideration here. For the purposes of determining whether a colour per se is registrable as a trade mark it is necessary to take as a standpoint that of the relevant public.

46.

In the absence of any indication to the contrary in the order for reference, it must be considered that the case in the main proceedings relates to goods and services intended for all consumers. Accordingly, the relevant public in this case must be deemed to be composed of the average consumer, reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (see Case C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 26).

47.

The number of colours which that public is capable of distinguishing is limited, because it is rarely in a position directly to compare products in various shades of colour. It follows that the number of different colours that are in fact available as potential trade marks to distinguish goods or services must be regarded as limited.

48.

It is settled case-law that trade mark rights constitute an essential element in the system of undistorted competition which the EC Treaty seeks to establish and maintain (see Case C-10/89 HAG II [1990] ECR I-3711, paragraph 13, and Case C-63/97 BMW [1999] ECR I-905, paragraph 62). The rights and powers that trade marks confer on their proprietors must be considered in the light of that objective.

49.

Furthermore, under Article 5(1) of the Directive, a trade mark confers on its proprietor an exclusive right, in relation to certain goods and services, that allows him to monopolise the sign registered as a trade mark for an unlimited period.

50.

The possibility of registering a trade mark may be limited for reasons relating to the public interest.

51.

The various grounds for refusing registration in Article 3 of the Directive must therefore be interpreted in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (Case C-299/99 Philips [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraph 77).

52.

As regards Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive, the Court has recognised that this provision pursues an aim that is in the public interest, which requires that the signs and indications descriptive of the categories of goods or services for which registration is sought may be freely used by all (see Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee [1999] ECR I-2779, paragraph 25, and Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01 Linde and Others [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 73).

53.

Similarly, with regard to Article 3(1)(e) of the Directive, the Court has held that this provision pursues an aim which is in the public interest, namely that a shape whose essential characteristics perform a technical function and were chosen to fulfil that function may be freely used by all (Philips, paragraph 80, and Linde, paragraph 72).

54.

As regards the registration as trade marks of colours per se, not spatially delimited, the fact that the number of colours actually available is limited means that a small number of trade mark registrations for certain services or goods could exhaust the entire range of the colours available. Such an extensive monopoly would be incompatible with a system of undistorted competition, in particular because it could have the effect of creating an unjustified competitive advantage for a single trader. Nor would it be conducive to economic development or the fostering of the spirit of enterprise for established traders to be able to register the entire range of colours that is in fact available for their own benefit, to the detriment of new traders.

55.

It must therefore be acknowledged that there is, in Community trade-mark law, a public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other operators who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

56.

The greater the number of the goods or services for which the trade mark is sought to be registered, the more excessive the exclusive right which it may confer is likely to be, and, for that very reason, the more likely is that right to come into conflict with the maintenance of a system of undistorted competition, and with the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other traders who market goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

57.

The Commission argued in its observations that the notion that certain signs must remain available and cannot therefore be allowed to enjoy protection finds expression in Article 6 of the Directive rather than in Articles 2 and 3. That argument cannot be accepted.

58.

Article 6 of the Directive concerns the limits on the effects of a trade mark once it has been registered. The Commission's argument amounts to proposing that there should be a minimal review of the grounds for refusal in Article 3 of the Directive at the time when the application for registration is considered, on the basis that the risk that operators might appropriate certain signs which ought to remain available is neutralised by the limits which Article 6 imposes at the stage when advantage is taken of the effects of the registered mark. That approach is, essentially, tantamount to withdrawing the assessment of the grounds of refusal in Article 3 of the Directive from the competent authority at the time when the mark is registered, in order to transfer it to the courts with responsibility for ensuring that the rights conferred by the trade mark can actually be exercised.

59.

That approach is incompatible with the scheme of the Directive, which is founded on review prior to registration, not an a posteriori review. There is nothing in the Directive to suggest that Article 6 leads to such a conclusion. On the contrary, the large number and detailed nature of the obstacles to registration set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive, and the wide range of remedies available in the event of refusal, indicate that the examination carried out at the time of the application for registration must not be a minimal one. It must be a stringent and full examination, in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered. As the Court has already held, for reasons of legal certainty and good administration, it is necessary to ensure that trade marks whose use could successfully be challenged before the courts are not registered (Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 21).

60.

Accordingly, the reply to the third question referred must be that, in assessing the potential distinctiveness of a given colour as a trade mark, regard must be had to the general interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other traders who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

The first question and Question 2(a)

61.

By its first question and Question 2(a), the national court is essentially asking whether and, if so, in what circumstances a colour per se may be held to be distinctive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of the Directive.

62.

It is settled case-law that the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked goods or service to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin (see Canon, paragraph 28, and Case C-517/99 Merz & Krell [2001] ECR I-6959, paragraph 22). A trade mark must distinguish the goods or services concerned as originating from a particular undertaking. In that connection, regard must be had both to the ordinary use of trade marks as a badge of origin in the sectors concerned and to the perception of the relevant public.

63.

The relevant public, as defined in paragraph 46 of this judgment, is made up of average consumers, reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

64.

Account should be taken of the fact that the average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks but must place his trust in the imperfect picture of them that he has kept in his mind (see, in different contexts, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, paragraph 26, and Case C-291/00 LTJ Diffusion [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 52).

65.

The perception of the relevant public is not necessarily the same in the case of a sign consisting of a colour per se as it is in the case of a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign that bears no relation to the appearance of the goods it denotes. While the public is accustomed to perceiving word or figurative marks instantly as signs identifying the commercial origin of the goods, the same is not necessarily true where the sign forms part of the look of the goods in respect of which registration of the sign as a trade mark is sought. Consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods based on their colour or the colour of their packaging, in the absence of any graphic or word element, because as a rule a colour per se is not, in current commercial practice, used as a means of identification. A colour per se is not normally inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of a particular undertaking.

66.

In the case of a colour per se, distinctiveness without any prior use is inconceivable save in exceptional circumstances, and particularly where the number of goods or services for which the mark is claimed is very restricted and the relevant market very specific.

67.

However, even if a colour per se does not initially have any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, it may acquire such character in relation to the goods or services claimed following the use made of it, pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Directive. That distinctive character may be acquired, inter alia, after the normal process of familiarising the relevant public has taken place. In such cases, the competent authority must make an overall assessment of the evidence that the mark has come to identify the product concerned as originating from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish that product from goods of other undertakings (Windsurfing Chiemsee, cited above, paragraph 49).

68.

The reply to the first question referred must therefore be that a colour per se, not spatially delimited, may, in respect of certain goods and services, have a distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of the Directive, provided that, inter alia, it may be represented graphically in a way that is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. The latter condition cannot be satisfied merely by reproducing on paper the colour in question, but may be satisfied by designating that colour using an internationally recognised identification code.

69.

The reply to Question 2(a) must be that a colour per se may be found to possess distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of the Directive, provided that, as regards the perception of the relevant public, the mark is capable of identifying the product or service for which registration is sought as originating from a particular undertaking and distinguishing that product or service from those of other undertakings.

Question 2(b)

70.

By Question 2(b), the national court is asking whether it is relevant to assessing whether a colour has a distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive that registration of the colour per se as a trade mark is sought for a large number of goods and services, or for a specific product or service, or for a specific group of goods or services.

71.

In the light of the considerations set out at paragraphs 56, 66 and 67 of this judgment, the reply to Question 2(b) must be that the fact that registration as a trade mark of a colour per se is sought for a large number of goods or services, or for a specific product or service or for a specific group of goods or services, is relevant, together with all the other circumstances of the particular case, to assessing both the distinctive character of the colour in respect of which registration is sought, and whether its registration would run counter to the general interest in not unduly limiting the availability of colours for the other operators who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

The fourth question

72.

By its fourth question the national court is asking, essentially, whether, in assessing whether a trade mark has distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of the Directive, the competent authority for registering trade marks must carry out an examination in the abstract or by reference to the actual situation, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, and in particular use which has been made of the mark.

73.

It must first of all be observed that the 12th recital in the preamble to the Directive states that 'all Member States of the Community are bound by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property' and that 'it is necessary that the provisions of this Directive are entirely consistent with those of the Paris Convention'.

74.

Article 6 quinquies C(1) of the Paris Convention states: '[I]n determining whether a mark is eligible for protection, all the factual circumstances must be taken into consideration, particularly the length of time the mark has been in use'.

75.

Second, registration of a sign as a trade mark is always applied for in respect of the goods or services mentioned in the application for registration. Accordingly, a trade mark's distinctiveness must be assessed by reference, first, to the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, and, second, by reference to the relevant public's perception of that mark.

76.

Since the competent authority for registering trade marks has to satisfy itself that the sign is not devoid of distinctive character for the goods or services of the undertaking seeking its registration as a trade mark, it may not carry out an examination in the abstract but must of necessity undertake its examination by reference to the actual situation. That examination must take account of all the relevant circumstances of the case, including any use which has been made of the sign in respect of which trade mark registration is sought.

77.

The reply to the fourth question referred must therefore be that, in assessing whether a trade mark has distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of the Directive, the competent authority for registering trade marks must carry out an examination by reference to the actual situation, taking account of all the circumstances of the case and in particular any use which has been made of the mark.

Costs

78.

The costs incurred by the Netherlands and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of 23 February 2001, hereby rules:

1. A colour per se, not spatially delimited, may, in respect of certain goods and services, have a distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, provided that, inter alia, it may be represented graphically in a way that is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. The latter condition cannot be satisfied merely by reproducing on paper the colour in question, but may be satisfied by designating that colour using an internationally recognised identification code.

2. In assessing the potential distinctiveness of a given colour as a trade mark, regard must be had to the general interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other traders who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

3. A colour per se may be found to possess distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of Directive 89/104, provided that, as regards the perception of the relevant public, the mark is capable of identifying the product or service for which registration is sought as originating from a particular undertaking and distinguishing that product or service from those of other undertakings.

4. The fact that registration as a trade mark of a colour per se is sought for a large number of goods or services, or for a specific product or service or for a specific group of goods or services, is relevant, together with all the other circumstances of the particular case, to assessing both the distinctive character of the colour in respect of which registration is sought, and whether its registration would run counter to the general interest in not unduly limiting the availability of colours for the other operators who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

5. In assessing whether a trade mark has distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of Directive 89/104, the competent authority for registering trade marks must carry out an examination by reference to the actual situation, taking account of all the circumstances of the case and in particular any use which has been made of the mark.

Trademark law trademark rights trademark trademarks trademark protection likelihood of confusion danger of confusion the need to keep a mark free for the trade distinctiveness Community trademark Community trademarks IR-trademark European trademark EU-trademark symbol mark trade name trademark attorney trademark Hanover Stuttgart Frankfurt Munich trademark registration at the DPMA German Patent and Trademark Office at the OHIM and at the WIPO title of a work title protection firm company protection company logo legal dispute jurisdiction period of protection protective rights industrial property protection notorious registered application processing nullity procedure application procedure lawyer before the Patent Office in Munich for clients in Germany Europe and worldwide attorney-at-law trademark law name protection trademark act concerning trademark law entering of a trademark in the trademark register owner of a trademark trademark registration Madrid Agreement Protocol to Madrid Agreement trademark agreement trademark office German Patent and Trademark Office ohim habm WIPO horak attorney attorney-at-law Hanover Community Trade Mark Registration colour-trademark word mark picture mark word-picture mark trademark brand Trade Mark Law trademark trademarks law office attorney Hanover priority business designation infringement claim intellectual property nullity industrial property protection IP law law patent Patents patent protection patent search mark search name company Trade Mark Domain TLD domain name protection copyright author right computer law software law design secret know-how publicity advertising law on competition discount allowance cartel law cartel internet online law internet law licence licences Hanover inventor founder media telecommunication TKG consumer EU Europe Hanover Lower Saxony registration right lawyer patent attorney attorney-at-law lawyer contract counselling law office society franchising right of sale media law TV law foodstuffs law concerning foodstuffs pharmaceutical products German Patent Office European Patent electrical engineering GRUR IBA IEEE VDE VBP EWiV EAK UWG Trademark Act Patent Act GWB Act on Discounts non-disclosure contract agreement Hanover attorney-at-law attorney ATTORNEY contract standard sales contract counsellor agreement lawyer trademarks collective registration trade mark attorney-at-law lawyer brand branding trademark design logo trademark sign confusion trademark adovocat trademark law implementing regulation trademark costs employment law warning notice internet internet law online law Reginal Court Landesgericht LG Stuttgart job offer jobs advertising agency Regional Court LG Muenster domain law domain domain-grabbing domain lawyer URL Web design Web hosting Regional Court LG Munich LG Berlin LG Regional Court Duesseldorf LG Regional Court Essen LG Gelsenkirchen CD-Rom development portfolio trademark agent trademark agency production comic right computer law graphics law concept corporate design corporate identity design law electronic publishing electronic media project print advert advertising law logo project of a logo flyer drafting questionnaires business printed paper LG Osanbrueck LG Gelsenkirchen Wennigsen Laatzen Langenhagen Hybride Production Internet-presentation internet presence Higher Court LG Essen internet-service campaign classic advert Lower Saxony nds communication law communication agency layout logo new media trademark law trademark act trademark implementing regulation protectable signs application area protected marks and other signs requirements contents and grounds for refusal and business symbols transfer of licences and trademarks marks business symbols; precedence seniority of a trademark as a trademark protectable signs trademark protection precedence seniority of a trademark requirements fort he protection of a trademark to enter in a register ownership grounds for refusal registered trademarks entered into the registry relative well-known earlier mark the scope of protection infringement exclusive right of the owner of a mark; statement of claim exclusive right of the owner claim for nonfeasance; statement of claim representation of a registered trademark claims against agents or other representing parties information claim protection limitation statute of limitations forfeiture of a right forfeiture of rights binding effect of trademark registration use of names and descriptive data spare parts shop exhaustion forfeiture of rights due to the insufficient use of a trademark trademark use trademark transfer of a right legal ownership; deliveries to the owner physical rights compulsory enforcement; bankruptcy proceedings licences registered trademarks registration procedure registration requirements day of registration; registration claim; publication of registration foreign priority examination examination of grounds for refusal absolute grounds for accelerated patent examination withdrawal of the application modification of an application correction of an application registration objection objection of nullity insufficient use of a trademark decision on objection correction; division; duration of protection prolongation modification register publication duration of protection prolongation relinquishment expiration and nullity; nullity proceedings expiration nullity due to absolute grounds for refusal nullity due to existence of older rights effects of nullity due to expiration or nullity cancellation by the Patent Office due to expiration cancellation procedures before the Patent Office on absolute grounds for refusal cancellation procedures before ordinary courts general rules concerning proceedings before the Patent Office jurisdiction Patent Office justification objection expert opinion court hearing investigation; hearings; wording decisions; communication of the possibility of appeal access to the files; access to the register proceedings costs and charges recollection proceedings before the Patent Office appeal; proceedings in open court participation of the president of the Patent Office oral debate decision on objection costs of the objection proceedings; preparation of an oral debate taking of evidence wording judicial finding of fact; legal hearing delivery of the decision; delivery; justification correction representation; power of attorney application of further regulations; invalidity; access to the files proceedings before the Patent Office legal complaint correction of the complaint; grounds for complaint more participants application of further regulations decision on legal complaint award of costs common regulations duty to tell the truth official language und deliveries legal assistance collective trademarks ownership registrability of geographical indications of origin as collective trademarks limitations of protection; use right to sue; recompense for damage regulation governing use of the marks lawyer attorney-at-law music music law lawyer copyright record contract producer contract collecting society collecting societies gema society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights gvl society for exploitation of ancillary copyrights contract law publisher’s contract publishing contract artist contract name law right to use a name legal counseling electronic music music examination of the application Änderung der Markensatzung Verfall nullity wegen absoluter Schutzhindernisse Schutz von Marken nach dem Madrider Markenabkommen und nach dem Protokoll zum Madrider Markenabkommen; Community trademarks protection of trademarks according to dem Madrider Markenabkommen application of rules of this act IR application costs entry in the register subsequent extension of protection effect of international registration absolute grounds for refusal of protection examination of the absolute grounds for refusal objection subsequent refusal to protection objection and application for cancellation on grounds of an internationally registered trademark exclusion from rights due to lack of utilisation of transferred trademarks with international registration trademark protection according to the protocol of the madrid trademark agreement application law on competition lawyer law Hanover regulation of this act IR-application fees note for the file; entry in the register subsequent extension of protection Adequate application of the regulations regarding the effect of According to the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks Trademark Agreement internationally registered marks transformance of an international registration Community trademarks application of Community trademarks at the Patent Office application of these regulations subsequent trademark subsequently declared void transformation of community trademarks community trademark courts; community trademark litigation informing the comission territorial jurisdiction of the community trademark courts insolvency procedure geographical indications of origin indications of origin protection of indications of origin names protected as geographical indications of origin data or signs scope of protection; claim for damages expiration protection geographical indications of origin according to the regulation (EWG) Nr 2081/92 application for the registration of a geographical indication of origin Application for altering specifications opposition proceedings responsibilities within the patent office jurisdiction; appeal monitoring right to forbearance; claim for damages expiration authorisation to create regulations protection of individual geographical indications of origin other regulations relating to the procedure of application and objection according to the regulation (EWG) Nr 2081/92 rules regulating the application of the directive (EWG) Nr 2081/92 penal regulations fine regulations seizure at import and export penal regulations fine regulations punishable infringement of statement of invention punishable use of geographical indication of origin fine regulations seizure of goods at import and export seizure on infringement of rights an invention Withdrawal; Objection; repeal of seizure Responsibilities claim for damages appeal claim for damages unjustified seizure seizure according to directive (EG) Nr. 3295/94 seizure due to unlawful marking with geographical indications of origin preliminary regulations application of this act limits for assertation of infringement claims rights in rem; compulsory enforcement of judgement insolvency procedure licenses examination of registered trademarks for absolute grounds for refusal of protection publication and registration proceedings of interference registration duration and prolongation of protection cancellation of a registered trademark due to expiration cancellation of a registered trademark on absolute grounds for refusal cancellation lawyer law advice email online counselling lawyer lawyers lawyer search lawyer law legal advice legal counselling lawyer search attorney-at-law lawyer specialised lawyer specialised lawyers specialized lawyer search service lawyer directory of lawyers attorney lawyer act acts rulings judgement judgement jurisdiction advice counselling legal advice help information law legal information legal counsel legal help lawyer’s hotline telephone 0190 service service number telerat telephone information service telephone counselling telephone instant counselling direktrat discount-broking direct counselling telephone lawyer telephone legal advice court law office law offices domain domain law internet internet law names right to a name trademark trademarks claim sue higher regional court oberlandesgericht olg Software patents patents patent protection patent registration infringement of a patent patent attorney patent law office Patent Office Patent Act European Patent Convention European Patent Community patent convention litigation litigation protocol trademark infringement filing a trademark registration EU-trademark IR-trademark OHIM EPO European Patent Office German Patent and Trademark Office design Community designs standard Trademark Act trademark guideline IT Internet Intranet IT law Internet-law media law net law computer law databank databank protection data protection design law design protection data protection law domain name liability Domains domain law trademark law online contracts telecommunication copyright provider agreement project contract software protection software law software licences licences ICANN-proceedings WIPO OMPI domain name dispute resolution domain name arbitration ASP law office attorneys joint practice lawyers co-partnership specialised lawyer OLG Munich licensing contracts media services teleservices e-commerce electronic-commerce electronic signature Signature Act surrender information rights to use online-right to representation online rights of use web design e-commerce-guideline tele-shopping Long Distance Sales Act new media multimedia ICANN internet law legal counselling agreements law of contracts drafting of contracts e-business representation law on competition provider trademark law trademark infringement warning notice interim injunction: Trademark Act industrial property protection infringement of a trademark warning notice title title protection right to a name trademarks registered trademarks used trademarks known trademarks company symbols firm lawyer multimedia trademark trademarks competition warning notice company symbols HTML law attorney-at-law trademark trademark law infringement of a trademark right to a name warning notice interim injunction word mark picture mark domain names trademark slogan ad trademark branding mark communication advertising vehicle advertising medium branches target groups competence Internet web design package design direct marketing media design agency advertising agency flyer leaflets Corporate Design business reports business papers commercial papers business equipment visiting cards package design presentation Multimedia radio spots TV-Spots posters advertising measures advertising novelty radio ad new media e-commerce full service agency lawyer lawyers collection attorney attorneys counsellor counsellors trademark patent collections patents trademarks law office law offices solicitor solicitors barrister barristers counsel law firm law firms lawyer attorney-at-law avocat avocats advokatur abogado abogados bufete de abogados despacho de abogados estudio jurídico estudio jurídico patent peru trademark attorney attorneys lawyer lawyers investments collection counsel counsellor counsellors solicitor solicitors barrister barristers civil law commercial law collections patents trademarks investment law office law offices law firm law firms attorney-at-law law office abogado avocat abogados avocats bureau d'avocats estudio juridico bufete de abogados avvocato competition law competition Act on Discounts Trademark Act attorney-at-law lawyers Long Distance Sales Act long distance sales fax advertisement law of obligations telephone advertisement customer loyalty cards clubs miles copyright patent law legal counselling company protection copyright law economic law attorney-at-law lawyer law on competition copyright law trademark law Act on Discounts regulation governing free gifts regulation governing indication of prices general terms and conditions of trade AGB lawyer attorney-at-law court proceedings law advertising agency copyright law of contracts admission OLG Regional Appeal Court Köln LG Köln higher court Cologne law concerning medical profession medical practitioners’ liability social health insurance doctor law of medicine Berlin lawyer Hamburg Munich Stuttgart Frankfurt Düsseldorf Darmstadt Hanover Brunswick Magdeburg media law warning notice UWG German unfair competition act judgements Web space higher court software software law e-mail e-mail-ad email spam spamming media services pseudonym domain-grabbing domain service law office lawyers attorneys-at-law Berlin Munich Cologne Hamburg Hanover online legal counselling media law right to free speech freedom of speech jurist legal sciences jurists Göttingen Göppingen Pirna Nagold Kempten Iserlohn profession Bayreuth Saarbrücken Oder Augsburg Neustadt Coesfeld Elmshorn Riesa Soest Dresden Kassel Dessau Dortmund Rottweil Soltau Rastatt Bautzen Plauen Coburg Würzburg Erfurt Schwerin Neuwied Uelzen Wetzlar Kaiserslautern Papenburg Cuxhaven Wiesmoor Hof Ulm Gronau Wilhelmshaven Nordhausen Saarlouis Wolfsburg Gelsenkirchen Ludwigsburg Altenburg Villingen Schwenningen Schweinfurt Offenburg Memmingen Halberstadt Leck Schwandorf Wittenberg Neunkirchen Montabaur Aschaffenburg Waiblingen Bielefeld Rosenheim Karlsruhe Emsdetten Ingolstadt; profession occuptation Attendorn Paderborn Offenbach lawyer design trademark search Hildesheim Reutlingen Pfarrkirchen Sangerhausen Merseburg Deggendorf Heidelberg Ludwigshafen Ravensburg Regensburg Baltic seaside resort steamer boat steamboat Helmstedt designer Darmstadt translator Traunstein Dannenberg Wuppertal Neuruppin Kreuznach Pforzheim Salzgitter outwork Neubrandenburg Annaberg Hanau Donauwörth Gera additional income Driburg income Limburg Marburg Korbach Ansbach Meschede Zwickau Landshut Stade Heide Landau Verden Oldesloe Hagen Hameln Aalen Ahlen attoney-law-at Wesel Essen Mayen Krefeld Herford outplacement Bergisch Gladbach tradmark branding name Vechta profession Bochum Oschatz Gotha Freiburg Balingen Solingen Freising profession Düsseldorf Weilheim Suhl trademark application Pirmasens Recklinghausen Hamm Nienburg Mannheim Stendal Göttingen Göppingen Pirna Nagold Kempten Iserlohn Bayreuth Saarbrücken Augsburg Neustadt Coesfeld Elmshorn Riesa Soest Dresden Kassel Dessau Lizenz distribution Marketing Dortmund Rottweil Soltau Rastatt Bautzen Plauen Coburg Würzburg Erfurt Schwerin Neuwied Uelzen Wetzlar Kaiserslautern Giessen Kanzlei Schleissheim Tauberbischofsheim Hersfeld Halle Neumünster Gronau Köln Cologne products Hamburg Kiel Flensburg Cuxhaven Lübeck Bremerhaven Leer Emden Barock Oldenburg Meppen Lingen Papenburg Aurich Wiesmoor Nordhorn Bonn Duisburg Oberhausen Bottrop München Berlin Stuttgart Frankfurt Nuremberg Hanover Oeynhausen Leipzig Rostock attorneys-at-law regional Osnabrück Marketing partner programme Lörrach Weil Euro Internet Partner programme Wellness part-time work additional earnings jobs Hamburg München Berlin Stuttgart Kiel loan employment Lübeck Bremen Leipzig Rostock Aachen Attendorn Driburg Heilbronn Bamberg Jena Brunswick Celle Lüneburg Dannenberg Chemnitz Cottbus Detmold Eberswalde Emsdetten Flensburg Niebüll Fulda Goslar Ingolstadt Koblenz Konstanz Lingen Meppen Magdeburg Mainz Neustadt main profession regular occupation Gronau Nordhorn Oldenburg Ostseebad Passau Potsdam Salzgitter Soltau Trier Wiesbaden Wolfsburg Oldesloe Elmshorn Flensburg Hamburg Heide Kiel Lübeck setting up in business Neubrandenburg Neumünster Rostock Gründer Schwerin Stralsund Braunschweig Brunswick Bremen Bremerhaven Celle Emden Grenzach-Wyhlen Göttingen Goslar Hannover Helmstedt Hildesheim Leer Lüneburg Weil Nienburg Nordhorn Oldenburg Osnabrück Stade Uelzen Vechta Verden Wilhelmshaven Cottbus Eberswalde Frankfurt/Oder Neuruppin law Potsdam Altenburg Dessau Erfurt Gera Gotha Halberstadt Halle Jena law Grenzach-Wyhlen Magdeburg Merseburg Nordhausen Sangerhausen Stendal Suhl Wittenberg Hersfeld legal advice Darmstadt Frankfurt Fulda Gießen Hanau Kassel Korbach Limburg Marburg Offenbach Wetzlar Wiesbaden Aachen legal Ahlen Bielefeld Barock Bergisch Bochum Bonn Brühl Coesfeld Detmold Dortmund Düren Düsseldorf Duisburg Essen Gelsenkirchen lawyer economic law trademark search attorney-at-law