Have you ever experienced jet lag? There is a 'JET LAG' on the trademark flight.  

In the case of Summer Fridays LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), (Case T-472/24), Summer Fridays LLC applied for international registration of the word mark “JET LAG” for goods in Class 3, which includes cosmetics and skincare, in the EU. The EUIPO Examiner rejected the registration due to the mark being deemed descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The Board of Appeal upheld this decision, and Summer Fridays subsequently appealed to the General Court, seeking to annul the Board's ruling. The application for trademark registration covered a variety of cosmetic and skincare products. However, the EUIPO turned down the registration, explaining that the term “JET LAG” would likely be seen by consumers as a description of products intended to minimize the visible effects of jet lag, like tiredness, dull complexions, and dehydration. In response, Summer Fridays contended that the term doesn’t actually describe the characteristics of their goods and argued that it shouldn’t be connected to the medical condition of jet lag.

Legal Question: Whether the term “JET LAG” describes the characteristics or intended purpose of the goods under Article 7(1) (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, making it non-registrable as an EU trade mark.

Arguments

Applicant

The applicant argues that the Board did not adequately differentiate between the various types and purposes of goods in Class 3. They believe that "JET LAG" does not directly describe the goods in question, nor do these products specifically address the underlying medical causes or cognitive symptoms associated with jet lag. They point out that the simultaneous occurrence of jet lag and skin dehydration does not make the mark descriptive. Additionally, the applicant references a previous EUIPO registration for “JET LAG MASK” to support their position.

Defendant

The EUIPO argues that the term in question is descriptive for the target audience, as it directly relates to the intended effect or purpose of the products—specifically, their ability to revitalize or remedy skin appearance associated with jet lag. Additionally, it is important to note that administrative precedent does not establish binding legality; each trademark must independently satisfy the relevant statutory and jurisprudential standards.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

Decision

The Court made a decision to dismiss the action. It upheld the Board of Appeal’s refusal and ordered the applicant to cover the costs. The relevant public in this case consists of English-speaking consumers in the EU, particularly in Ireland and Malta. This group plays a significant role in understanding the context and implications of the product in question. All the goods involved are designed to enhance the appearance and health of the skin. They create a clearly defined category that consumers can easily recognize and relate to. The term “JET LAG” is immediately understood as referring to a state of fatigue that people often experience during travel. Given this context, cosmetic products aimed at restoring or refreshing the skin may resonate with consumers as addressing symptoms related to fatigue. The law doesn't require that these products remedy the underlying medical conditions. It simply necessitates that consumers see a connection between the products and the effects they describe. In this case, consumers might associate skin dehydration with jet lag, leading them to perceive a descriptive relationship. The court has ordered the dismissal of the action in the case involving Summer Fridays LLC. Additionally, the company has been instructed to cover the associated costs.

The term “JET LAG” effectively describes cosmetic products that aim to alleviate the visible effects of travel fatigue. As a result, it fails to meet the criteria for EU trademark registration, as outlined in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. This regulation stipulates that descriptive terms cannot be registered as trademarks if they simply describe the nature or purpose of the product. Therefore, using "JET LAG" in this context does not qualify for protection under the EU trademark law.

Conclusion

In its analysis, the Court applied the legal standard outlined in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 concerning descriptiveness. This provision prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist solely of signs or indications that may be used in trade to designate the kind, quality, intended purpose, value, or other characteristics of the goods in question. The Court adhered to established legal precedents which clarify that the perception of the term by the end consumer is central to this analysis. It emphasized that descriptiveness does not require the goods to address medical causes but merely to suggest a related effect. This doctrine highlights the balance between consumer understanding and the commercial functionality of the trademark. Consequently, even if the applicant has innovative intentions for their products, the term "JET LAG" ultimately leads consumers to immediately associate it with fatigue and the effects of travel. The ruling underscores the importance of clear and distinct trademarks in the cosmetic industry, as descriptive terms can dilute brand identity and consumer differentiation. Thus, while creativity in branding is encouraged, it must be balanced with legal requirements, ensuring that trademark registration serves to protect both consumers and the integrity of the marketplace.