Rossoneri club crest loses all rights over Trademark “MILAN”

The Court of the European Union has recently rejected an appeal that was lodged by AC Milan regarding the use of their wordmark logo internationally. However, the brand representing the Rossoneri club’s crest is not eligible to be registered as a trademark as it is already in use in Germany. The report also notes that Milan’s appeal has been rejected which means that the club will need to regroup again for this matter for coming up with a new strategy this.

This case can be traced back to the month of June of 2020 when Milan filed an appeal against the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) where it did not allow the badge to become an international trademark. The reason behind this decision was given that the same was already in use in Germany and was duly registered for products of stationery.

“The high phonetic similarity and visual similarity of this sign with the ‘MILAN’ trademark entails a risk of confusion on the part of consumers which prevents their simultaneous protection in Germany as regards stationery products (such as pens, pencils, and notebooks),” the Court said.

This tussle originally started back in the year 2017 when Milan submitted an application for international registration to the EUIPO but a German company named Inter ES Handels-und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaftmb H & Co. KG raised opposition against Milan’s registration because of the wordmark ‘MILAN’ that they already begun using in the year 1984 and registered in the year 1988.

The German company stated in its opposition, “Due to the similarity of the Rossoneri brand to ours, the registration of the former will be likely to cause a likelihood of confusion on the part of the German public.”

The EUIPO accepted the opposition in its entirety in its decision of 14th February 2020 against which Milan lodged an appeal. Now, this appeal has also been rejected because there is an existence of too much visual and phonetic similarity. The case can be reached with case no. T 353/20.