{"id":11356,"date":"2022-01-14T10:54:53","date_gmt":"2022-01-14T09:54:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/cancellation-of-the-mark-texto-for-lack-of-distinctiveness\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T05:15:33","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T04:15:33","slug":"cancellation-of-the-mark-texto-for-lack-of-distinctiveness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/cancellation-of-the-mark-texto-for-lack-of-distinctiveness\/","title":{"rendered":"Cancellation of the mark TEXTO for lack of distinctiveness"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The company SFR, owner of the trademark TEXTO, opposed the registration of the trademark ONE TEXTO and the exploitation of this trademark by a company of the same name having the following activity: &#8220;communication, marketing, advertising, mobile phone, audiotel and text message for business and management as well as in the field of robotics and hi-tech&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: 16px;\"><span style=\"float: left; font-size: 8em; line-height: 100%; margin: -.1em 0px; padding-right: .1em; color: #8ab6c1;\">S<\/span>FR also accused this company of using a website under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/lexicon\/domain-name\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">domain name<\/a> &#8220;OneTexto.com&#8221; whose dominant color is red, offering to boost the communication policy of companies by sending SMS.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By judgment of January 29, 2008 (TGI Paris, ch.civ 3, January 29 n\u00b006\/10489), SFR was dismissed of all its claims and the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris declared the trademark TEXTO and &#8220;Texto, Dites le en toutes lettres, dites le texto&#8221; invalid for lack of distinctiveness. SFR was also dismissed from all its claims for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/lexicon\/unfair-competition\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">unfair competition<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">SFR has appealed this decision.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court of Appeal, by decision of September 23, 2009 (CA, Paris -Pole 5 ch.01 n\u00b008\/02816), confirmed in all respects the first instance judgment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, under the terms of Article L.711-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, the following are not distinctive<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>&#8220;(a) signs or names which, in common or professional language, are exclusively the necessary, generic or usual designation of the product or service<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>(b) signs or names that may serve to designate a characteristic of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/lexicon\/products-and-services\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">product or service<\/a>, and in particular the kind, quality, quantity, purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the good or provision of the service.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court noted that the distinctive character of a sign must be assessed in relation to the services designated in the registration and in relation to the perception of the relevant public, as of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/lexicon\/trademark-application\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">filing<\/a> date.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify; color: #8ab6c1;\">On the trademark &#8220;Texto, Dites le en toutes lettres, dites le texto&#8221; registered on March 23, 1998<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this case, the trademark &#8220;Texto, Dites le en toutes lettres, dites le texto&#8221; was registered to designate mobile messaging services.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8220;Texto&#8221; is the abbreviation of the word &#8220;textually&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The words &#8220;say it, spelled out&#8221; describe how to send a text message for mobile messaging services, and refer directly to the service designated in the trademark wording.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Consequently, the trademark &#8220;Texto, Dites le en toute lettres, dites le texto&#8221; designates, within the meaning of Article L.711-2 b) of the Intellectual Property Code, a characteristic of the service designated in the application, and must be declared invalid for lack of distinctive character.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify; color: #8ab6c1;\">On the trademark &#8220;Texto&#8221; registered on January 23, 2001<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court of Appeal noted that this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/lexicon\/brand\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">trademark<\/a> was registered to designate the written messaging service by radio mobile.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the date of filing of the &#8220;Texto&#8221; trademark, this term had become customary to designate a message sent by mobile and that it was not associated with the SFR company.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, it appears from articles published in the newspaper Le Monde dated December 16, 2000, January 23, 2001, in the weekly magazine L&#8217;Express published on March 16, 2000 and January 11, 2001, that the term Texto was known to the public to designate a small written message, friendly, sent by cell phone.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Consequently, the term Texto was in common parlance for a messaging service before the SFR company filed its application, and it must therefore be cancelledfor lack of distinctiveness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The company SFR, owner of the trademark TEXTO, opposed the registration of the trademark ONE TEXTO and the exploitation of this trademark by a company of the same name having the following activity: &#8220;communication, marketing, advertising, mobile phone, audiotel and text message for business and management as well as in the field of robotics and &#8230; <a title=\"Cancellation of the mark TEXTO for lack of distinctiveness\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/cancellation-of-the-mark-texto-for-lack-of-distinctiveness\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about Cancellation of the mark TEXTO for lack of distinctiveness\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8825,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[210],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-brand-rights"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11356"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11356\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16584,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11356\/revisions\/16584"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cabinetbouchara.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}