A Twist Too Functional: General Court Rejects Hand-Grip Corkscrew Trade Mark

Key Takeaways

• Functional grip shapes barred from EU trademark protection
• Part-product marks subject to same functionality exclusion
• Aesthetic tweaks don't outweigh technical necessity
• EUIPO may raise new absolute grounds anytime
• Alternative designs irrelevant for functionality analysis

Summary

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s refusal to register Empreinte’s hand‑shaped corkscrew handle as a 3‑D EU trademark, finding the design exclusively functional under Art. 7(1)(e)(ii) EUTMR. The Court ruled that the Board of Appeal provided sufficient reasoning and that procedural rights were respected despite the shift from distinctiveness to functionality objections. It confirmed that functionality analysis applies to part‑product marks and that aesthetic embellishments do not rescue a technically driven shape. The judgment therefore narrows the scope for protecting ergonomic product forms through trademark law.

Pulse Analysis

The General Court’s ruling in Empreinte v EUIPO clarifies the application of the functionality exclusion under Art. 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EU Trade‑Mark Regulation. By treating the hand‑grip corkscrew handle as a technically necessary feature, the court reinforced the principle that trademark law cannot be used to monopolise functional product solutions. This aligns with earlier CJEU jurisprudence, emphasizing that even partial product representations are subject to the same absolute grounds, and that procedural flexibility allows the EUIPO to introduce new objections before registration is complete.

For designers and brand owners, the judgment signals that ergonomic or performance‑driven shapes must be protected through other IP avenues, such as design patents or utility models, rather than trademarks. Aesthetic modifications, unless they are pronounced and unrelated to function, will not suffice to overcome the functionality bar. The case also underscores that the existence of alternative designs on the market does not influence the functionality assessment, removing a potential defensive argument for applicants seeking trademark protection for innovative yet functional forms.

The broader market impact is a tightening of trademark strategy in sectors where form follows function—kitchenware, tools, and consumer electronics, among others. Companies will need to conduct early functional analyses to determine the most suitable IP protection, balancing design registration with trade‑mark filing. As the EUIPO continues to scrutinise part‑product marks, proactive engagement with patent counsel and design experts becomes essential to safeguard competitive advantage without overreaching the limits of trademark law.