Deceptive Indications and Trade Mark Protection: Lessons from the Redefine Meat ‘Inverted Cow’ Case

Background

Redefine Meat, a company specialising in environmentally friendly plant-based meat alternatives, sought protection for their logo mark through an International Registration (IR) claiming protection in classes 1, 7, 29, and 42. The logo mark, an image of an ‘inverted’ cow (as shown below), was intended to designate the origin of their meat substitute products and related services.

EUIPO's Decision

The EUIPO issued a provisional refusal of registration based on Articles 7(1)(b) and (g) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation.

The EUIPO first found the mark to be ineligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b), on the basis that the logo mark was a representation commonly used as an indicator for the goods applied for, specifically in relation to “fatty acids” and “fats for industrial purposes” in classes 1 and 29, respectively. The EUIPO reasoned that the logo is a “true-to-life portrayal of an inverted cow that does not depart from the features of how a cow is commonly portrayed”, and that when the logo was used in conjunction with the objected goods, consumers would instantly recognise the logo simply as a cow symbol and would not see it as a badge of origin – one of the fundamental requirements of a trade mark.

A more wide-ranging and interesting objection of the EUIPO arose under Article 7(1)(g). The EUIPO found that the logo mark was ineligible for registration for almost all goods and services applied for, on the basis that it was “likely to deceive consumers when used in relation to the goods and services for which protection is sought” (e.g. meat substitute products, amongst other things). It was decided that the inverted cow logo “conveys a clear and unambiguous indication that the goods originate from cows”, despite the products actually being meat substitutes. The EUIPO cited the example of a consumer seeing the logo on products in a supermarket and mistakenly “assuming they were purchasing meat” (or indeed any product containing cow-derived ingredients), thus rendering the mark deceptive.

Redefine Meat Ltd’s position

Redefine Meat Ltd chose not to appeal the provisional refusal and subsequently appear to have changed their corporate logo visible on their website, moving away from the inverted cow logo. This possibly suggests a strategic response to the EUIPO's decision and a recognition of the potential issues surrounding consumer deception.

Comments

The case raises several considerations for brand owners seeking trade mark protection for vegan products or alternative foodstuffs. Firstly, it highlights the importance of avoiding deceptive indications which may mislead consumers within trade marks, even where this is completely unintentional. The EUIPO emphasised that deceptive indications can never be granted protection on the EU trade mark register.

Furthermore, the case highlights the need for trade mark applicants to carefully consider the wording and qualifiers used in their trade mark specifications. Redefine Meat's inclusion of the qualifier "excluding foodstuff containing meat" may have contributed to the EUIPO's finding that their international registration was deceptive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(g).

A copy of the EUIPO’s decision is available here.

Article drafted with assistance Louiza Georghiou, a trainee at CMS.