EUROPEAN UNION: Mercedes-Benz Hits a Legal Bump

The General Court (GC) has confirmed the refusal to register a figurative EU Trade Mark (EUTM) depicting an off-road vehicle climbing a slope, on the grounds that the sign lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. Its judgment came in the case of Mercedes-Benz Group AG v. EUIPO (Case T‑400/24) on March 19, 2025.

Mercedes-Benz filed the application on December 6, 2022, for the following figurative mark, covering goods in Classes 12 and 18, including “motor vehicles and parts thereof; tyres and wheels” in Class 12:

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) partially refused the application, and the Fifth Board of Appeal upheld the refusal, finding that the sign consisted of a common depiction of an off-road vehicle on a slope merely illustrating the vehicle’s inherent features.

The GC agreed that the mark depicted a typical off-road vehicle with large tires and a rear-mounted spare wheel in a promotional setting emphasizing its climbing capabilities. Despite Mercedes-Benz’s argument that the sketch was unique, artistic, and eye-catching, the GC held that the sign did not depart sufficiently from standard representations of such vehicles in the relevant market sector. All this applies even if, as the Board of Appeal found, the consumer is likely to pay particular attention to the goods in question because of their typically high value.

Importantly, the GC reiterated that for marks comprising the image or outline of a product, distinctiveness arises only when the mark departs significantly from industry norms or expectations. The GC found that consumers would view the sign as a mere stylized illustration of the goods, not as an indicator of origin.

Mercedes-Benz also argued that all possible uses of the mark should be considered, even in the absence of specific intended usage. However, the GC noted that Mercedes-Benz had not demonstrated that alternative uses of the mark would have influenced the outcome or that the sketch could serve as a badge of origin in any practical commercial context.

As a result, the GC dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the figurative sign lacked the minimum distinctiveness required for registration.

This decision once again confirms the EUIPO’s rather alpine standards when it comes to distinctiveness—steep, firm, and not without their scenic frustration for trademark professionals. After all, even the most iconic brands sometimes stall when faced with the uphill terrain of EUTM requirements.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association