Dior Trademark Filing: The EUIPO Board of Appeal Confirms the Absence of Distinctive Character in the Bottle Shape

1. Facts and Procedural Background

On 4 September 2024, Parfums Christian Dior filed an application for a European Union trademark (EUTM No. 19 074 989) consisting of the figurative representation of a transparent rectangular bottle topped with a metallic spherical cap, covering perfumery, make-up, and cosmetic products in Class 3.

This filing formed part of Dior’s broader strategy to protect the visual identity of its packaging as a distinctive element of brand communication.

However, the EUIPO examiner refused registration on the grounds that the sign was devoid of any distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of the EUTMR, finding that the shape did not sufficiently depart from the norms and customs of the relevant sector.

Dior appealed the decision before the Fourth Board of Appeal¹, seeking recognition of the shape as a distinctive trademark, not merely a product design.

‍

2. Dior’s Arguments

Dior contended that the shape represented far more than a simple container. The design, featuring a translucent elongated body, a slightly flattened metallic sphere at the top, and a structured base with concentric rings, created a refined aesthetic signature characteristic of the Dior Addict collection.

The brand argued that:

• the visual design of packaging plays a central role in identifying origin, especially for luxury cosmetics;
• a trademark registration was essential to combat online counterfeiting imitating Dior’s flacons and lip gloss tubes;
• and, subsidiarily, that the shape had acquired distinctiveness through use, given its broad recognition among consumers.

Dior also invoked precedents where comparable three-dimensional forms had been registered in Class 3, invoking the principle of equal treatment within EUIPO practice.

‍

3. Legal Assessment by the Board

The Board reiterated the fundamental rule that a trademark must enable the public to identify the commercial origin of the goods. Under established EU case law, a three-dimensional sign can be registered only when it significantly departs from the norms or customs of the sector (T-488/20, Shape of a cylindrical lipstick).

Applying this principle, the Board found that:

• the rectangular form of the bottle is typical and commonplace for perfumery and cosmetics;
• the transparent effect and mirror-finish metallic cap are standard decorative features;
• and, taken together, the design does not create an impression that would be perceived by consumers as an indicator of origin.

The Board rejected Dior’s reliance on the luxury positioning of its products, noting that the trademark covered ordinary consumer goods, for which purchasing decisions are guided by brand names rather than packaging shapes.

The reference to the FORM PÅ FRAMLYKTORNA (T-260/23) decision, concerning the shape of car headlights, was also dismissed as inapplicable to the cosmetics sector.

‍

4. Decision and Outcome

The Board therefore confirmed the refusal under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, holding that the bottle design lacked inherent distinctiveness for all goods claimed.

Nevertheless, the case was remitted to the examiner for consideration of acquired distinctiveness through use under Article 7(3) EUTMR, should Dior be able to demonstrate that the public associates the shape specifically with its brand.

‍

5. Commentary

The outcome, though disappointing for luxury brands, was legally foreseeable. The decision confirms once again the strict threshold applied to three-dimensional trademarks: packaging designs are not inherently distinctive unless they depart clearly from industry conventions.

In the luxury sector, where product design often carries strong aesthetic identity, this case highlights the difficulty of protecting shapes as trademarks. Only long-standing and well-documented consumer recognition, supported by robust market evidence, can allow such forms to benefit from protection through acquired distinctiveness.