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

Partner Pierre Pérot rejoins the firm he left in 2022 alongside another returning lawyer, associate Camille Abba
Vaping dispute, in which Stobbs and Brandsmiths are the representatives, tested how the UK's Human Rights Act can apply to injunctions restraining unjustified threats
An AI platform being sold for £40m, and lateral hires involving law firms Womble Bond Dickinson and Cadwell Thomas were among the top talking points
With the London Annual Meeting behind us, we look back at some of the lessons learned this week and ahead to what 2027 will bring
In-house counsel aren’t impressed with law firms’ international networks, but practitioners say they are crucial for business
Publication of the UPC’s annual report and adoption of the procedural rules of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were also among major developments
With the INTA Annual Meeting drawing to a close, we asked attendees for their top tips on how to close business after a meeting
Senior UK judges discussing the impact of AI on the judiciary, and the role of in-house IP lawyers during corporate transactions and carve-outs were among the top talking points
Tarun Khurana, founding partner of Khurana & Khurana, discusses juggling tasks, why every hour has a value, and the importance of ‘trusting the process’
Annual Meeting hears that IP firms are targeting hires with technical literacy in a fragmented landscape, and that those that build an online presence will distinguish themselves from the digital chaos
Gift this article