- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
EU Court Rules In Favour Of Gym Chain In Tour De France Trademark Battle
EU Court Rules In Favour Of Gym Chain In Tour De France Trademark Battle
French company Societe du Tour de France lost a Trademark Dispute Against a German Gym chain on Wednesday. The Court ruled that consumers were unlikely to confuse the prestigious bicycle race Tour de France with a similar phrase used by the gym chain for its clothing and services.
Societe du Tour de France had contested the decision of the European patent office EUIPO, which allowed FitX to Trademark a Figurative sign "Tour de X" for Various Goods and Services, Including Games, Toys, and Sporting Equipment.
The French company holds rights to the expressions ‘TOUR DE FRANCE’ or ‘LE TOUR DE FRANCE’ for its goods and services. The Tour de France is a renowned annual men's multi-stage bicycle race predominantly held in France.
The General Court in Luxembourg sided with EUIPO on Wednesday and rejected Societe du Tour de France's challenge.
"The public is unlikely to confuse the trademarks despite the goods and services' identity or similarity," judges stated. They emphasized, "The only shared element between the trademarks - 'tour de' - is inherently weak in distinctive character, and the similarity between the marks is minimal."
The court explained that 'tour de' is a descriptive phrase commonly used in cycling competitions and related events, lacking significant distinctive character.
This decision can be appealed on legal grounds to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the highest court in Europe.



