Beyond any ethical-environmental consideration, that blue dot has become somewhat of an icon, a distinctive sign of bananaswhich also turns pink when there is a campaign to do on breast cancer awarenessfor example. Icon yes, but not to be protected.
According to a ruling of the EU Court, in fact, the blue oval cannot be a protected trademark: neither the shape (a geometric shape) nor the color scheme give it an adequate distinctive character.
In short, the Court of Justice of the EU confirmed that the trademark filed by Chiquita Brands does not satisfy the requirements for protection as a Union trade mark for fresh fruit.
And, be careful, we are not talking about the brand with the addition of the well-known female figure printed on it or the name of the company, but about the blue and yellow oval underneath. The US company’s symbol had been registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for several foods, including fresh fruit.
What happened
The dispute arose in 2020 from request from a French company, Compagnie financière de participation (competitor of Chiquita Brands), to declare the invalidity of that trademark, which had no “distinctive character”.
The EUIPO had reached an agreement with the French company and, in May 2023, established that the trademark was invalid for fresh fruit, including banana notes. The reason was the same proposed by the Company: the Chiquita brand sticker had no particular characteristics: that is, the blue and yellow oval would lack the character to distinguish fresh produce, including bananas.
Furthermore, the European Intellectual Property Office had placed the responsibility on Chiquita trademarks to demonstrate that the registered symbol had acquired “distinctive character through use”. Not having done so, the company based in Florida had not lost heart, proceeding with an appeal to obtain the revocation of the nullity of the blue and yellow oval branded Chiquita.
European justice has not changed its mind. The Court reiterated that “neither the shape nor the blue and yellow color scheme of the mark gives it a distinctive character”. As for the shape, the Court ruled that it resembles an oval without any features distinctive and, furthermore, that labels of that kind are often used in the banana industry (since they adapt well to the shape of the fruit).
Even the color combination had nothing original, being a combination of shades primaries And often used in the fresh fruit trade. The consequence of these two elements is that the originally registered symbol did not possess any distinctive sign that would allow “identifying the commercial origin” of the fruit sold by the Chiquita brands.
Chiquita’s (lost) war and its skeletons in the closet
A big defeat on a commercial level for a company whose global banana production has significant implications for both worker safety and the environment.
Chiquita – which only recently was sanctioned for having financed a paramilitary group – has over time implemented various initiatives to improve working conditions on its plantations (for example, it signed the IUF-COLSIBA-Chiquita agreement, unique in the banana sector, which promotes workers’ rights) and, since 2013, specifically protects the interests of women, addressing issues such as gender equality and women’s empowerment. But is it all greenwashing? Likely, considering that the company has come under scrutiny for the working conditions on its plantations. In 2007, the French organization People Solidaires accused a Chiquita subsidiary in Costa Rica of violating the fundamental rights of workers and exposing them to pesticides highly toxic. As in 2019, the Swiss magazine Beobachter highlighted serious problems relating to workers’ rights on banana plantations in Ecuadorsome of which Chiquita supplies, reporting 12-hour workdays, poverty wages and employment without contracts.
The brand has also undertaken various initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of banana production, but it has been widely reported that it still uses dangerous pesticides beyond permitted levels. A report by the Danish Danwatch center documented the aerial spraying of pesticides without warning to workers and the handling of pesticides without adequate protections on plantations in Ecuador that supply Chiquita.
Finally, in 2014, the organization Water and Sanitation Health (WASH) has filed a lawsuit against the Rainforest Alliance, accusing it of certifying Chiquita plantations as sustainable despite polluting drinking water with fertilizers and fungicides in Guatemala.
