“INTA takes the view that the image of a face of a human being may well serve as a means to distinguish goods and services.” – INTA brief
国际商标协会（INTA）认为，人类的面部图像很可能成为区分商品和服务的一种方式。—— 国际商标协会意见书
The International Trademark Association (INTA) announced today that it has filed an amicus brief in a referral to the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that asks for clarification on registering human faces as trademarks. INTA urged the Grand Board to confirm that“signs consisting of photorealistic facial images of people, including famous ones, are not per se excluded from trademark protection.”
国际商标协会（INTA）今日宣布，已就提交至欧盟知识产权局（EUIPO）大上诉委员会的一项事宜提交了一份法庭之友意见书，该事宜旨在就将人脸注册为商标一事寻求明确解释。INTA敦促大上诉委员会确认，“包括名人在内的、由逼真面部图像构成的标识，本身并不被排除在商标保护范围之外” 。
Johannes Hendricus Maria Smit
（来源：INTA 意见书）
The case stems from Johannes Hendricus Maria Smit’s attempt to register his face (pictured above) as an EU trademark in various classes for a range of goods and services. Smit is a“singer, actor and TV presenter who is well known in The Netherlands and who has gained a certain reputation also in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria” but who is“not really known in the other EU Member States,” according to the INTA brief.
这起案件源于Johannes Hendricus Maria Smit试图将自己的面部（见上图）在多个类别中注册为欧盟商标，涵盖一系列商品和服务。根据INTA的意见书，Smit是一位 “在荷兰广为人知的歌手、演员和电视节目主持人，在德国、比利时、瑞士和奥地利也有一定的知名度”，但“在其他欧盟成员国并不太出名” 。
The examiner initially refused the registration in January 2016, invoking Article 7(1)(c) and/or (b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(2) EUTMR. A final decision was issued by the examiner in December of 2023, again refusing registration for, among other reasons, a lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness with respect to some goods and services, and because “[n]otwithstanding the decision 16/11/2017, R 2063/2016-4, REPRESENTATION OF A PERSON’S FACE and a number of similar decisions of the Board of Appeal, the Office remains of the opinion that (photographic) images of persons are commonplace in the advertising of products and services.”
审查员最初于2016年1月拒绝了该注册申请，援引了《欧盟商标条例》（EUTMR）第7条第（1）款（c）项和/或（b）项以及第 7 条第（2）款。2023年12月，审查员发布了最终决定，再次拒绝注册，原因包括对某些商品和服务缺乏显著性、描述性，并且“尽管有2017年11月16日关于‘编号R 2063/2016 - 4，个人面部形象’的决定以及上诉委员会的一些类似决定，但本办公室仍然认为，（摄影）人像在产品和服务的广告中极为常见” 。
Smit appealed to the Second Board of Appeal, which referred the case to the Grand Board in September 2024, citing the following reasons:
“It is apparent from a preliminary examination that, at first instance, the Office appears to systematically refuse registration of trade marks containing the face of a person pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and/or Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR. In the most recent years, the Board of Appeal has ruled, by various decisions, that EU trade mark applications containing a person’s face are not inherently devoid of distinctive character.”
Smit向第二上诉委员会提出上诉，该委员会于2024年9月将此案提交给大委员会，理由如下：
“初步审查表明，在一审阶段，欧盟知识产权局似乎依据《欧盟商标条例》第7条第（1）款（b）项和/或第7条第（1）款（c）项，系统性地拒绝受理含有人脸的商标注册申请。近年来，上诉委员会通过多项裁决判定，包含人脸的欧盟商标申请并非天生就缺乏显著特征。”
INTA in its brief noted a contradiction in the examiner’s reasoning; the examiner at once stated that the person depicted in a photo seeking registration is required to be well-known, but also said the reputation of the person can contribute to the mark being unregistrable, since “the relevant consumer would understand it as referring to its subject matter, namely the artist, musician, painter or philosopher in question, and not as an indicator of commercial origin.” The amicus brief pointed to several cases in which the Grand Board of Appeal has affirmed the ability of a portrait image to act as a source identifier and encouraged the Board to continue this line of reasoning.
INTA在其意见书中指出了审查员推理中的矛盾之处：审查员一方面表示，申请注册的照片中所描绘的人物需要广为人知，但又表示该人物的声誉可能导致该商标无法注册，因为“相关消费者会将其理解为指向其所描绘的对象，即相关的艺术家、音乐家、画家或哲学家，而不是作为商业来源的标识”。这份法庭之友意见书列举了大上诉委员会确认肖像图像能够作为来源标识的几个案例，并鼓励委员会延续这一推理思路 。
The brief further argued that faces can act as commercial source identifiers under certain circumstances and set out suggested criteria to consider when evaluating such marks:
“INTA takes the view that the image of a face of a human being may well serve as a means to distinguish goods and services if (i) it is used in the course of trade in relation to goods or services, (ii) it is used in a consistent format and appearance; (iii) it is used in a manner (e.g. on a specific position of the goods) which the addressed public already knows and perceives as typical for trademarks, and (iv) either the public is accustomed in the specific market to such portraits being used as trademarks or the portrait has special characteristics which make it different from a “normal” portrait.”
该意见书进一步论证道，在某些情况下，人脸可以充当商业来源标识，并列出了评估此类商标时应考虑的建议标准：
“INTA认为，如果满足以下条件，人类的面部图像很可能成为区分商品和服务的一种手段：（i）该图像在商品或服务的商业交易过程中使用；（ii）其使用具有一致的格式和外观；（iii）其使用方式（例如，在商品的特定位置使用）是目标公众已经知晓并视为商标典型特征的；（iv）在特定市场中，公众习惯将此类肖像用作商标，或者该肖像具有使其区别于‘普通’肖像的特殊特征。”
INTA pointed to several well-known examples from the food/ restaurant sector (pictured above) as evidence that the public can associate faces with commercial goods/ trade origin. Like name trademarks, faces should simply be assessed by examiners for whether they have been used in the course of trade:
“[A]ny examiner, having to assess the capability of the image of a face to fulfil the function of a trade mark, should examine whether the concrete trademark applied for in the context of the market of the goods and services applied for and the consumer habits as well as the manner in which trademarks are used in the respective market, is capable of being regarded as a trademark by the average consumer or, alternatively, whether special characteristics which make it different from a “normal” portrait make it likely that the applied for mark will function as a trademark.”
INTA指出了食品/餐饮行业的几个知名例子（见上图），以此作为公众能够将人脸与商业商品/商业来源联系起来的证据。与名称商标一样，审查员只需评估人脸是否在商业活动过程中被使用：
“任何需要评估人脸图像是否具备履行商标功能的审查员，都应当考察，在申请的商品和服务所处的市场背景下，结合消费者习惯以及相关市场中商标的使用方式，所申请的具体商标是否能够被普通消费者视为商标；或者，该商标是否具有使其区别于‘普通’肖像的特殊特征，从而有可能发挥商标的功能 。”
The brief also pointed to the examples of color and other non-traditional marks, where establishing distinctiveness may also be difficult.
With respect to inherent distinctiveness, INTA told the Grand Board that the approach of the Fourth Board of Appeal should be followed. There, the Fourth Board found that an image of Dutch model Maartje Robin Elke Verhoef was capable of functioning as a trademark. “[E]stablishing whether a portrait of a person, in the form of either a photo or drawing, is distinctive under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR requires a complex assessment, which must be carried out by considering various factors and all the peculiarities of the case, always taking into consideration that the public perception may vary over time,” said the INTA brief. The subject matter of trademark protection when assessing both inherent distinctiveness and descriptiveness “would not be the face of a person or his/her likeness in general, but only a particular photograph of that person,” added the brief.
该意见书还提及了颜色及其他非传统商标的例子，在这些例子中，确立显著性可能也颇具难度。
关于内在显著性，INTA告知大上诉委员会，应遵循第四上诉委员会的做法。在相关案例中，第四上诉委员会认定荷兰模特Maartje Robin Elke Verhoef的形象能够起到商标的作用。INTA 的意见书称：“要确定一张照片或绘画形式的人物肖像是否符合《欧盟商标条例》第7条第（1）款（b）项所规定的显著性，需要进行复杂的评估。评估时必须考虑各种因素以及案件的所有特殊情况，同时始终要考虑到公众认知可能会随时间而变化。”该意见书还补充道，在评估内在显著性和描述性时，商标保护的标的“通常并非某个人的面部或其肖像本身，而只是该人的某一张特定照片” 。
While INTA conceded that “especially in some sectors, consumers may not be in the habit of perceiving photorealistic facial images as trademarks, and that it might be more difficult to establish inherent distinctiveness of these signs under the current market practices,” acquired distinctiveness can be determined not just by assessing the reputation of the person but by establishing “a systematic use of the sign as trademark and not of the face of the person in non-trademark uses.”
虽然INTA承认，“尤其是在某些行业，消费者可能不习惯将逼真的面部图像视为商标，而且在当前的市场惯例下，要确定这些标识的内在显著性可能会更加困难”，但获得显著性的判定，不仅可以通过评估人物的声誉来进行，还可以通过确定“该标识被系统地用作商标，而非将人物面部用于非商标用途”来实现 。