Predominantly nominative vs predominantly graphic: clearly distinctive

Marca LM Cliente 2

On this occasion, the delegate superintendent for industrial property matters concurred with the arguments presented on appeal by our client L&M LOTZER & MÜHLENBRUCH GMBH.

Firstly, the superintendent acknowledged that, in the recurred decision, the trademarks office mistakenly evaluated the trademark with which it based its refusal, since they considered it a simply nominative trademark while, in reality, it consisted of a mixt trademark.

Secondly, the superintendent highlighted the fact that both numbers and letters, on their own, are not susceptible of registry so, when evaluating the distinctiveness of a sign whose configuration consists only of numbers and letters, additional elements such as graphic configuration will determine the distinctive strength of the sign.

Accordingly, when re-evaluating the conflicted trademarks, the superintendent determined that the predominant element of the trademark L&M (MIXT) requested by our client was nominative, while the predominant element of the base refusal trademark LM (MIXT) was graphic, thus eliminating any risk of confusion among the compared trademarks.

Consequently, our client managed to protect and register their trademark in the Colombian market.

If you seek protection for your trademarks and intangible property, contact us at our email: [email protected]

Predominantly nominative vs predominantly graphic: clearly distinctive