Russia: Patent office and chamber find the shape of bottle to be ‘insufficiently original’

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Patent office and chamber find the shape of bottle to be ‘insufficiently original’

Sponsored by

gorodissky-400px.png
amy-humphries-2m-sdj-agvs-unsplash.jpg

Vladimir Biriulin of Gorodissky & Partners explains why the patent office and the chamber were not satisfied with an applicant’s attempts to trademark a blue bottle

An applicant filed trademark application No. 2019731757, in respect of the goods in Class 32 and services in Class 35. The designation represents a 3D image of a blue-coloured bottle in its original shape. The central part of the bottle is convex and is compose of pentagons. Five, five-pointed stars are spaced along the circumference of the central part.

Patent office decision

The patent office refused the application because according to the examiner, the claimed designation does not conform to Article 1483 of the Civil Code. In particular, the claimed designation represents a 3D object of the shape of which is conditioned by its destination: a container for storing and selling liquid products. Hence, it indicates the type of the product and does not have distinguishing capability. A designation of this kind may only be protected if it acquired distinctiveness during its use which has to be proved.

a00aa44a384f471eb8d5293462f73865
The blue bottle in dispute

The applicant appealed the decision of the patent office arguing that the shape of the bottle is not traditional. If the product is recognised non-protectable it should comply with two conditions: (i) the shape should be absolutely functional; and (ii) the shape should be traditional.

However, the claimed designation has additional non-functional characteristics: (i) the shape of the product is a stylised bottle; and (ii) it is not functional. This shape was chosen for the consumer to distinguish the applicant’s product from those of other persons.

Thanks to the original shape, it may also be used as a souvenir and as an ornament in the indoor environment. If placed on the shelf of a shop, the bottle will stand out as an advantage among similar goods of other producers.

Chamber decision

The Chamber of Patent Disputes was not satisfied with the applicant’s arguments. It noted that the claimed designation was indeed a bottle of blue colour, and that the body of the bottle has convex and concave elements in the form of geometric figures. Registration is sought for non-alcoholic drinks, beer, and water among other similar products. The distinctive character of a designation consists in the capacity of the trademark to identify the goods of a certain producer which allows the consumer to recognise the trademark and the good respectively among other goods. The presence of embossed elements (convex and concave) on the body of the bottle, a screwed neck of the bottle, protrusions and hollows on the bottom do not give sufficient distinctiveness or style, for it to be remembered by the consumer.

In particular, protrusions and hollows make the bottle more stable, a threaded neck allows the user to close the bottle tightly, and embossed elements on the body of the bottle provide a reliable grip during its use. All this contributes to its convenience in use which confirms the conclusion of the examiner regarding its utilitarian purpose.

As a result, the Chamber of Patent Disputes did not satisfy the appeal and confirmed the negative decision of the patent office.

Conflicting criteria

The main reason for refusal is that it is insufficiently original, a criterion which is difficult to evaluate. In this context the term ‘insufficiently original’ looks strange. Where does sufficiency of the originality begin? Where is the borderline between original and insufficiently original? In fact, the examiner admitted that the bottle is original but not enough.

 

 

Vladimir Biriulin

Partner, Gorodissky & Partners

E: biriulinv@gorodissky.ru

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm has added two leading damages specialists as it expands beyond technical analysis and deepens its role in the economics of IP litigation
Josh Seidenfeld, partner at DLA Piper, outlines the emerging legal trends that drive the future of life sciences innovation and how stakeholders can prepare for the future
South Korea's One Law Partners is combining with boutique firm Minwho Law Group to leverage global expansion of K-content and build a broader offering spanning IP, tech and regulatory advisory work
Russell Kennedy's Gina Tresidder on juggling matters, delivering hard truths, and why IP ownership is rarely as simple as people think
Attorney Oran Friar and trainee attorney Harry Cunliffe at Reddie & Grose, share that patent filings for clinical LLMs are surging, but success in the UK and Europe hinges on demonstrating technical innovation
Implementers can use the UK courts to seek FRAND terms for patent pool licences
The first credible UPC spinouts are growing, and they are coming from elite patent litigation teams, suggesting specialist litigators may no longer need large platforms to compete
Voyage IP has hired a veteran IP leader from Spruson & Ferguson as its head of trademarks, as well as another consultant who will boost the firm’s commercial offering
Lawyers say unwritten appearance expectations can disproportionately affect women and junior talent, making proactive guidance a growing responsibility for law firm leaders
Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Gift this article