Simba Toys Case Study
In a case regarding the shape of a flashlight; Mag Instruments , the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the relevant public’s perception of 3D trademarks was certainly different from its perception of word and verbal trademarks. As indicated by the ECJ, if a realistic or printed component is inadequate with regards to, general society is not used to inferring the source of the item from its shape or bundling. On account of a 3D trademark, deciding uniqueness could be more troublesome than with word or verbal trademarks. This particular type of 3D trademarks usually correspond to a distinctive feature of the product appearance itself; which is not the case with word or verbal trademarks where it normally made up of
…show more content…
KG v OHIM, Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM T-450/09 case as an example, in this case, a German toy manufacturer, Simba Toys put up a legal challenge against STL and questioning STL on validity for registering of the three dimensional trade mark that is portrayed the shape of a ‘Rubik’s Cube’ In this case, the court decide that the characteristic of Rubik’s puzzle did not necessarily be as the same shape depicted in the application but rather the well-known 3D cubic puzzle is being characterized by a nine-piece grid on each face with rotational abilities. The court also noted that there are many varieties of the “Rubik Cube” in the market and it comes with different shapes and sizes. Although Simba Toys contested that it is a necessity to have the black lines in the pictures, used to separate the nine panels on each face of the cube so that the toy could be rotated, the court in this case held that the rotational capabilities of the cube were due to an internal mechanism which is not visible in the application and reiterate that the cube can still be workable if it produced with rotating elements with no visible separating lines. Thus the court ruled out that the registration would not be rejected under this restriction as the black lines in the pictures were not an essential element for the “Rubik
KG v OHIM, Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM T-450/09 case as an example, in this case, a German toy manufacturer, Simba Toys put up a legal challenge against STL and questioning STL on validity for registering of the three dimensional trade mark that is portrayed the shape of a ‘Rubik’s Cube’ In this case, the court decide that the characteristic of Rubik’s puzzle did not necessarily be as the same shape depicted in the application but rather the well-known 3D cubic puzzle is being characterized by a nine-piece grid on each face with rotational abilities. The court also noted that there are many varieties of the “Rubik Cube” in the market and it comes with different shapes and sizes. Although Simba Toys contested that it is a necessity to have the black lines in the pictures, used to separate the nine panels on each face of the cube so that the toy could be rotated, the court in this case held that the rotational capabilities of the cube were due to an internal mechanism which is not visible in the application and reiterate that the cube can still be workable if it produced with rotating elements with no visible separating lines. Thus the court ruled out that the registration would not be rejected under this restriction as the black lines in the pictures were not an essential element for the “Rubik