## Facts

- A Hungarian company applied to register a three-dimensional trademark depicting the “Gömböc” object for (1) decorative items and (2) toys.
- The object is a homogeneous body designed to right itself, having one stable and one unstable equilibrium position.
- The Hungarian IP Office refused registration.
- For toys, the Office found the shape was necessary to achieve a technical result (self-righting).
- For decorative items, the Office found the shape gave substantial value to the goods.
- The Office relied in part on publicity and media coverage describing the object’s functional and aesthetic properties.
- The dispute reached Hungary’s supreme court, which requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of the EU shape-mark exclusions.

## Issues

1. When assessing whether a shape mark is excluded as necessary to obtain a technical result, may the authority consider information beyond the mark’s graphic representation and description filed with the application?
2. In applying the technical-result exclusion, may the authority consider the perception of the relevant public regarding the product’s function, and if so, what weight may it carry?
3. In applying the “substantial value” exclusion, may the authority consider external factors (e.g., designer reputation, creation history, marketing strategy) in determining whether the shape gives substantial value to the goods?

## Decision

- The court ruled that the technical-result exclusion does not prevent the authority from considering information beyond the graphic representation and any filed description, if used to identify the sign’s essential characteristics and the technical result they achieve.
- The court held that relevant-public perception may be considered to help identify essential characteristics, but it cannot be treated as an independent decisive criterion.
- The court held that the substantial-value assessment may take account of external factors (including designer reputation, artistic value, pricing differences, and marketing emphasizing aesthetics) insofar as they help determine whether the shape largely drives the purchase decision.
- As a preliminary ruling, the court interpreted the EU provisions and left the final application to the national court.

## Legal Principles

- Shape-mark exclusions serve a general-interest objective: trademark law cannot be used to secure exclusive rights over technical solutions or product characteristics that competitors may need, or over value-conferring aesthetic characteristics that materially affect competition.
- For the technical-result exclusion, authorities may use evidence beyond the application materials (including technical information) to identify the sign’s essential characteristics and assess whether they are necessary to obtain the technical result.
- Public perception can be relevant to identifying a shape’s essential characteristics, but the technical-result inquiry remains objective and cannot turn on consumer belief alone.
- For the substantial-value exclusion, the question is whether the consumer’s decision to purchase is, to a very large extent, determined by the shape’s essential characteristics; the shape need not be the sole value source.
- External contextual evidence (e.g., designer reputation and marketing) may be considered only insofar as it aids evaluation of the shape, as represented, and whether its essential characteristics confer substantial value.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that authorities applying EU shape-mark exclusions may consider contextual and technical evidence beyond the trademark filing, treat public perception as relevant but non-decisive for technical function, and evaluate “substantial value” using market context (including marketing and designer reputation) while keeping the assessment anchored to the shape as applied for.


Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v. Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Case C-237/19) (C.J.E.U. 2020)