Descriptive trade marks: the “Tonnellerie des Alpes” refusal
Figurative marks and descriptiveness: lessons from “Tonnellerie des Alpes”
On 17 September 2026, the EUIPO issued its decision on European Union trade mark application No. 019319637 “TONNELLERIE DES ALPES”, filed by Tonnellerie François Frères for metal hoops for barrels (Class 6) and for barrels, casks and wooden vats for decanting wine (Class 20).
The Office had issued a provisional refusal on 26 March 2026, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR). The applicant submitted observations on 19 May 2026, relying in particular on the Chiemsee case law and the CP3 Common Practice on figurative marks. The Office maintained its refusal in its entirety.
Beyond the facts of the case, the decision is a good illustration of the rigour with which the EUIPO applies the absolute grounds for refusal, and of the limited room for manoeuvre that graphic stylisation offers where the word element itself remains fully descriptive.
1. A refusal based on two absolute grounds under the EUTMR
1.1 Descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR)
The Office relies on a three-step analysis:
Meaning of the sign: for the French-speaking public (France, Belgium, Luxembourg), “TONNELLERIE DES ALPES” unambiguously designates a cooperage (a barrel-making workshop) located in the Alpine region, as supported by the Larousse dictionary definitions.
Direct and specific link with the goods: the metal hoops, barrels and casks covered are precisely the goods that such a workshop manufactures or from which they originate.
No interpretative effort required: the message is perceived immediately, without any detour or mental step, which rules out any merely allusive connotation.
1.2 Lack of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR)
Overlap between grounds (b) and (c): according to settled case law (Postkantoor, Biomild, Twist & Pour), a mark that is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods is necessarily devoid of distinctive character.
Stylisation regarded as “standard”: according to the Office, a legible bold typeface and the arrangement of the text over two lines are not enough to confer distinctiveness on an otherwise descriptive whole.
Redundant figurative element: in the Office’s view, the stylised black-and-white mountain merely reinforces the word “ALPES” rather than diverting attention from the descriptive message.
Informed professional public: contrary to the applicant’s argument, a higher level of attention on the part of the relevant public (wine-making and distilling professionals) does not lower the required threshold of distinctiveness (CJEU, Wir machen das Besondere einfach).
2. A decision in line with well-established practice
This refusal is not an isolated case. It reflects the EUIPO’s consistent approach to marks combining a generic trade term with a geographical indication:
The Chiemsee principle extended: it is enough that a link between the place and the goods may reasonably be established in the future, without requiring any reputation to have been acquired by the filing date.
A cross-sector issue: the same test applies to any combination of a trade term and a place (brewery, chocolate maker, soap works, cheese dairy, etc.) wherever a plausible geographical link may arise.
Limited room for manoeuvre for graphic elements: in this configuration, only truly distinctive stylisation can tip the balance, never mere bold type or a literal illustration of the geographical term.
3. Our practical recommendations
Avoid combining a generic trade term with a place name, even one that is little known for the goods concerned: the absence of a current reputation does not protect the sign if a future link is conceivable.
Do not rely on the level of attention of a professional public to offset a descriptive message: this factor does not lower the required threshold of distinctiveness.
Design figurative elements so that they convey a message of their own rather than a mere literal illustration of the word element (according to the Office, a mountain for “Alpes” is not enough).
If a risk of refusal is identified at the outset, gather evidence of use from the time of filing (sales figures, advertising spend, surveys, press coverage) capable of supporting acquired distinctiveness, rather than waiting for the notice of refusal.
Before filing, favour a sign that includes a truly arbitrary element (a surname, an invented term, a conceptual design) over a purely descriptive combination dressed up in a conventional visual.
Sources
To find out more, secure the filing of your figurative marks and anticipate this type of refusal, through our expertise we assist you in choosing a distinctive sign and in building a body of evidence of use tailored to your brand strategy.