Bewijs van eerder beeldmerk YouView+

Gerecht EU 1 juli 2014, IEFbe 902, zaak T-480/13 (YouView+) - dossier 
Gemeenschapsmerk. Beroep ingesteld door de houder van het Benelux-beeldmerk met de woordelementen "You View You-View.tv" voor diensten van de klassen 35, 38 en 41, en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling tot afwijzing van verzoeksters oppositie tegen de inschrijving van het woordmerk "YouView+" voor waren en diensten van de klassen 9, 16, 38, 41 en 42. Het gerecht EU vernietigt de beslissing van BHIM, bewijs van eerder merk - dat pas bij kamer van beroep is ingediend - moet in beschouwing genomen worden.

30 First of all, the fact, even were it assumed to be established, that the applicant did not seriously attempt, in the prescribed periods, to prove its ownership of the earlier mark is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the contested decision. As noted, that decision is not based on the lack of probative value of the evidence produced by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, but on the Board of Appeal’s inability to take that evidence into account at the stage of the opposition proceedings at which it adopted that decision.

31 Likewise, the argument that the Board of Appeal must, in certain circumstances, exercise its discretion under Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 restrictively must be rejected for the reasons set out in the previous paragraph, as must the argument that taking account of the evidence produced late would probably not have been justified. Moreover, in contrast to what it had done in the case that gave rise to Rintisch v OHIM — namely, for the sake of completeness, examining the circumstances warranting the late production of evidence by the applicant and thus exercising its discretion — in the present case, the Board of Appeal did not carry out such an examination.

32 In addition, it must be pointed out that, in view of the Board of Appeal’s discretion, the concept of a lack of legitimate interest in seeking to have the contested decision annulled — which applies where the annulment of the contested decision can only give rise to another decision identical in substance to the decision annulled — cannot be invoked (Case T‑99/95 Stott v Commission [1996] ECR II‑2227, paragraphs 31 and 32).