30. Annex A5 - Examples regarding Geneva Conventions Act 1957 s 15(1)

Date Published

 

Table 1. No ground for rejection

 

Examples of signs the use of which, on balance, we could not be satisfied are contrary to s 15(1) of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957:

 

Sign

Rationale

The sign incorporates a prominent arrow graphic. As a whole, it does not resemble the emblem of a Red Cross, nor is it likely to be mistaken for it.

The larger device is unlikely to be taken for the emblem of the Red Cross, as it is a highly stylised device composed of adhesive bandages.

 

With regards to the words ‘first aid + cpr’ while the symbol between the words FIRST AID and CPR has arms of equal length and thickness comparable to the Red Cross, its placement between the words renders the symbol likely to be taken for a plus symbol, and not the emblem of the Red Cross.

Note: the symbol being rendered in the colour red on a white background does not affect the decision, noting the provisions of s 70 of the Trade Marks Act 1995.

 

OYSTER + PEARL
KNIGHT DEFENCE+
BRYLLIANT+

Consumers are accustomed to the plus symbol being used to refer to combinations, collaborations, and superior quality, like in the example signs. Such use it is unlikely to be taken for an emblem resembling a Red Cross.

 

The cross graphic is visibly separated and has proportions similar to the Red Cross, however incorporation into the digit 4 creates the impression of 4 + You.  As a whole, it does not resemble the emblem of a Red Cross, nor is it likely to be mistaken for it.

The symbol presents as a positive charge rather than the emblem of the Red Cross.

 

The symbol being rendered in the colour red does not affect the decision, noting the provisions of s 70.

The crescent image featured in the trade mark is presented in a distinct composite.

 

As a whole, it does not resemble the emblem of a Red Crescent, nor is it likely to be mistaken for it.

 

The sign is considerably thinner than the visually simplistic Red Crystal.

 

As a whole, it does not resemble the emblem of a Red Crystal, nor is it likely to be mistaken for it.

 

 

Table 2. Ground for rejection appropriate

 

Examples of signs the use of which would be contrary to s 15(1) of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957:

 

Sign

Rationale


Cross as a prominent/separate feature
 


Prominent cross imbued with a medical connotation

Where a symbol is presented prominently, as a distinct essential feature, or there is a connotation that renders it more likely to be taken for the emblem of the Red Cross (such as an association with medical goods or services), it is more likely to be taken for the emblem of the Red Cross.

The cross symbol in the sign has arms of equal length and thickness that of the Red Cross. While the cross is incorporated into the heart graphic, it is not obscured, and all the relevant proportions remain. The association with health and doctors renders it more likely to be taken for the emblem of the Red Cross.

 

The intention of the applicant in this case is likely that the cross device be a visual representation of the word PLUS appearing underneath. However, the cross device is an essential and prominent feature of the trade mark, and use in this format recognisably conveys the emblem of the Red Cross.

 

While the cross symbol is incorporated into the letter O, its prominence and proportions are such that it is likely to be taken for the emblem of the Red Cross.

 

The symbol being rendered in the colour red on a white background does not affect the decision, although a new representation would be required.

 

Amended Reasons

Amended Reason Date Amended

Adding Annex 5 with updated Geneva Conventions s 15(1) examples
Back to top