Decisions
The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) rejected the application, referring to the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's)
Biomild judgment (C-265/00), which held that the combination of several elements which are not distinctive does not result in a distinctive sign. However, a non-distinctive sign can acquire distinctiveness. In this respect, the HIPO referred to the ECJ's
Chiemsee judgments (C-108/97 and C109/97), which define the conditions for acquiring distinctiveness, and held that the documents filed by the applicant were insufficient to prove the distinctiveness acquired.
The applicant requested a review by the Metropolitan Tribunal, but this was unsuccessful. The tribunal held that the registration of non-Hungarian words must be refused if their Hungarian meaning is not distinctive. This is the standard approach demonstrated in the case law of the Supreme Court (3. Pk. 23.534/2017).