Time-marked. (Photo credit: Hodinkee)
It was less than three weeks before the start of Watches and Wonders 2023 that Rolex filed a trademark application for a collection it was about to unveil, named after the year Rolex was officially founded. It managed to register not only “Perpetual 1908” but also “1908.”
Now, Montres Tudor SA, on the eve of its centennial, is hoping to do the same with “1926.” But a recent case shows that the approval — or rejection — of a trademark application, even among sister brands, may depend more on the examiner du jour than on consistency.
An examiner at the European Union Intellectual Property Office denied Tudor’s filing, saying trademarking 1926 was not distinctive enough. In its appeal, Tudor cited incohérence, or inconsistency, noting that several four-digit marks had been registered, “including, in particular, International Registration No. 1749806 designating the European Union for the mark 1908,” referring to Rolex. Tudor has used a collection named “1926” since 2018, predating Rolex’s launch of the “1908.”
After its appeal failed, Tudor brought action before the General Court of the European Union. The General Court agreed that a reference to a historic year signals tradition and durability, yet found that 1926 was still not distinctive enough to be trademarked and ultimately decided against Tudor. As for allowing Rolex’s 1908 registration, the General Court said that a decision by one EUIPO examiner does not bind the Boards of Appeal or the General Court and cannot justify maintaining an unlawful registration. Tudor’s final appeal rejected, the Court ordered the brand to pay the costs.