EUIPO最初驳回了我们代理的一件商标申请。我们对该驳回决定提起申诉后，针对部分产品，官方改变了它们的原有立场。
知识产权局在认定一件商标具有描述性时，可以走多远？
有时，出人意料地远。
在BIP律所处理的近期EUIPO案件中，官方对一件覆盖第7类、第8类商品的文字商标，提出了描述性和缺乏显著性的驳回理由。
官方认为，英语消费者会把该标志理解为指向"泡沫的生产"，因而认定其描述了商品的功能或特征。
对于某些洗涤清洁设备而言，这种关联显然要强得多。
但这一驳回理由也延伸到了截然不同的第8类商品，包括：
我们对驳回的范围提出了质疑。
官方重新考量了自身立场。
EUIPO撤回了针对受争议第8类商品的驳回理由，同时维持了对部分第7类商品的驳回，包括洗涤器具、高压清洗机和电动清洁机器。
同一商标。不同商品。不同结果。
这是一个有用的提醒：描述性不应脱离具体语境来判断。
真正的问题并不总是："该标志是否具有描述性？"
有时是："它对哪些商品具有描述性？"
而且这并非孤立的问题。
描述性驳回理由有时会带来相当出人意料的评估结果，其他例子包括：
DEEPCALM —— 用于欧盟的维生素补充剂、营养补充剂和营养保健品
HAPPYASS —— 用于德国的第25类商品
NOW VAPE —— 用于瑞典的烟草制品和电子烟
ThermoMate —— 用于泰国的第11类商品
还有一个特别值得一提的例子：
巴西的ChokChok案——该表述因其韩语含义（指皮肤饱满、水润有光泽的护肤或妆容质感，类似美妆圈说的"水光感"）而在化妆品和美容领域被认定为具有描述性。
这些例子表明，暗示性与描述性之间的界线可能变得多么难以划分。
审查员可能会认定一个对某类商品说得通的含义，但这种推理不应自动延伸到全部指定商品。
在绝对理由案件中，让官方改变立场极其困难。
但当驳回理由过度延伸时，逐项商品分析可以对最终保护范围产生实实在在的影响。
这正是本案发生的情况。
（以下为英文版）
EUIPO initially refused a trademark we were handling. We challenged the refusal. The Office changed its position, at least partly.
How far can an IP office go when deciding that a trademark is descriptive?
Sometimes, surprisingly far.
In a recent EUIPO case handled by BIP Law Firm, the Office raised descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness objections against a word mark covering goods in Classes 7 and 8.
The Office considered that English-speaking consumers would understand the mark as referring to the production of foam and therefore as describing a function or characteristic of the goods.
For some washing and cleaning equipment, that connection was clearly much stronger.
But the objection also extended to very different Class 8 goods, including:
• insecticide vaporizers
• syringes for spraying insecticides
• hand-operated tools
• guns [hand tools]
• hand-operated air pumps
We challenged the scope of the refusal.
The Office reconsidered its position.
EUIPO withdrew the objection for the contested Class 8 goods, while maintaining the refusal for certain Class 7 goods, including washing apparatus, high-pressure washers and electric cleaning machines.
Same mark. Different goods. Different outcome.
This is a useful reminder that descriptiveness should not be assessed in the abstract.
The real question is not always:
“Is the mark descriptive?”
Sometimes it is:
“Descriptive of which goods?”
And this is not an isolated issue.
Descriptiveness objections can sometimes lead to quite unexpected assessments. Other examples include:
DEEPCALM
for vitamin supplements, nutritional supplements and nutraceuticals in the EU
HAPPYASS
for Class 25 goods in Germany
NOW VAPE
for tobacco products and e-cigarettes in Sweden
ThermoMate
for Class 11 goods in Thailand
and one particularly interesting example:
ChokChok in Brazil, where the expression was treated as descriptive in the cosmetics and beauty field because of its Korean-language meaning associated with a moist, shiny skincare or makeup look.
These examples show how difficult the line between suggestive and descriptive can become.
An examiner may identify a meaning that makes sense for one category of goods, but that reasoning should not automatically be extended across an entire specification.
In absolute grounds cases, changing an Office’s position is rarely easy.
But where an objection stretches too far, a goods-by-goods analysis can make a real difference to the final scope of protection.
That is exactly what happened in this case.
素材来源：单个国家或联盟知产局/官方媒体/网络新闻
