The Bear Necessities: General Court finds figurative mark evoking teddy bear silhouette distinctive for jewellery.

On 26 July 2023, the EU General Court issued its decision in Apart sp z oo v EUIPO (Case T-591/21), dismissing an invalidity action taken by Polish jewellery retailer Apart sp z oo against Spanish jewellery retailer S Tous SL’s teddy bear-shaped mark.


In February 2009, Tous filed EU Trademark Application 8127128 for the below figurative sign covering, among other goods, jewellery in Class 14. The mark proceeded to registration in February 2010.

In May 2017, Apart applied to invalidate Tous’s trademark on the grounds that it was devoid of distinctive character and consisted of a shape that gives substantial value to the goods. The Cancellation Division rejected the invalidity action in its entirety and in January 2020, Apart appealed.

The BoA upheld the Cancellation Division’s decision and found that Apart had failed to show that consumers would immediately perceive the contested mark as being a representation of a teddy bear; rather, the ambiguity of the outline meant that some mental effort or fantasy was required on the part of consumers to associate the outline with the silhouette of a teddy bear.

In coming to its conclusion that the contested mark did in fact have distinctive character, the BoA held that the mark was a figurative mark consisting of the 2D representation of the goods at issue. It then went on to apply the following principles taken from the case law relating to 3D marks:

  • The average consumer does not typically deduce the origin of a product from its shape or shape of its packaging in the absence of any graphical or word element.
  • The greater the resemblance between the sign and the likely product shape, the higher the probability that the shape will lack distinctive character.
  • Only a mark significantly diverging from industry norms fulfils its essential function of indicating origin and possesses distinctiveness.


The court noted that while jewellery pieces can indeed take the form of a teddy bear, this was not in itself sufficient to find that the contested mark constituted a 2D representation of the shape of the goods. The court went on to say that such a finding would prevent any other use of the contested mark as a figurative sign and that Tous might use the mark on packaging, labels or promotional material so that consumers could identify the commercial origin of its goods.

However, the court pointed out that while the BoA had erred in applying the criteria relating to 3D marks, this would not justify an annulment of the BoA’s decision that Tous’s mark had distinctive character.

The court agreed with the BoA that Apart was unable to show that the contested mark gave substantial value to the goods at issue. The court pointed out that jewellery pieces for the most part consist of rings, necklaces and earrings, and that while these items are likely to bear the sign of which the mark consists, they are not likely to “take the shape thereof”. This meant that Tous’s mark consisted of a sign that was not related to the appearance of the goods that it covered and was not a sign that consisted exclusively of the shape of those goods.

In holding that Tous’s mark was not devoid of distinctive character, the court dismissed Apart’s action in its entirety and awarded costs against it.


While the court’s reasoning in dismissing Apart’s action makes for interesting reading, one notable point is that the court said that the sign was merely evocative of the silhouette of a teddy bear and that “it will not necessarily be perceived as such by all consumers”. This wording appears to suggest that the court considered that the sign would be perceived as evoking the outline of a teddy bear for at least some consumers (i.e., a portion of the relevant public within the European Union) but not others.

It seems rather immaterial for the court to have included this observation because Article 7(1) of the EU Trademark Regulation states that an absolute ground for refusal “shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Union”.

The court went on to say that “irrespective of whether the shape at issue will immediately be perceived as a teddy bear, that shape has no connection with the goods at issue, namely items of jewellery”. However, this appears to be a stretch, given that there are numerous teddy bear-shaped pieces of jewellery for sale. It will be interesting to see whether Apart decides to appeal this decision to the CJEU.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in August 2023. For further information, please go to


Privacy Settings

Privacy Settings
Saves the current privacy settings.
Retention period: This cookie will remain for 30 days.
Saves the current PHP session.
Retention period: This cookie will only remain for the current browser session.
Performance and Analytics Cookies
These technologies allow us to analyze website usage in order to measure and improve performance.
Google Analytics
This is a web analytics service. It allows the user to measure advertising ROI, track flash, video and social networking sites and applications.
Provider: Google Ireland Limited - Google Building Gordon House, 4 Barrow St, Dublin, D04 E5W5, Ireland
Technical name: _ga,_gat_gtag_UA_120928533_6,_gid
Show more details

Data Purposes

This list represents the purposes of the data collection and processing.
- Marketing
- Analytics

Technologies Used

- Cookies
- Pixel

Data Collected

This list represents all (personal) data that is collected by or through the use of this service.

- App updates
- Click path
- Date and time of visit
- Device information
- Downloads
- Flash version
- Location information
- IP address
- JavaScript support
- Pages visited
- Purchase activity
- Referrer URL
- Usage data
- Widget interactions
- Browser information

Legal Basis

In the following the required legal basis for the processing of data is listed.

- Art. 6 para. 1 s. 1 lit. a GDPR

Location of Processing

- European Union

Retention Period

The retention period is the time span the collected data is saved for the processing purposes. The data needs to be deleted as soon as it is no longer needed for the stated processing purposes.
The Retention Period depends on the type of the saved data. Each client can choose how long Google Analytics retains data before automatically deleting it.
Data Recipients

- Google Ireland Limited, Alphabet Inc., Google LLC

Data Protection Officer of Processing Company

Below you can find the email address of the data protection officer of the processing company.

Transfer to Third Countries

This service may forward the collected data to a different country. Please note that this service might transfer the data outside of the EU/EEA and to a country without the required data protection standards. If the data is transferred to the US, there is a risk that your data can be processed by US authorities, for control and surveillance measures, possibly without legal remedies. Below you can find a list of countries to which the data is being transferred. This can be for different reasons like storing or processing.

United States of America,Singapore,Chile,Taiwan

Click here to read the privacy policy of the data processor

Click here to opt out from this processor across all domains

Click here to read the cookie policy of the data processor

Storage Information

Below you can see the longest potential duration for storage on a device, as set when using the cookie method of storage and if there are any other methods used.

- Maximum age of cookie storage: 2 years

  Accept all
Please upgrade your browser. This website is not compatible with Internet Explorer.