14 mrt 2018
Crocs kan niet genoegzaam aantonen dat bekendmakingsevenementen de nieuwheid van haar model niet wegnemen
Gerecht EU 14 maart 2018, IEF 17552; IEFbe 2500; T-651/16 (Crocs tegen EUIPO) Modellenrecht. Sinds 2005 is Crocs in bezit van een Europees model voor door haar geproduceerd schoeisel. In 2013 doet Gifi Diffusion een verzoek tot nietigheidverklaring wegens gebrek aan nieuwheid. Gifi Diffusion stelt dat de nieuwheid van het model is weggenomen doordat het model op drie evenementen reeds voor de 12 maanden voorafgaand aan de prioriteitsdatum aan het publiek is getoond. De derde kamer van beroep van het EUIPO wijst het verzoek tot nietigheidverklaring toe. Crocs toont niet genoegzaam aan dat de drie bekendmakingsevenementen er niet voor hebben gezorgd dat het model bekend is geworden binnen de kringen die gespecialiseerd zijn in de betrokken sector, opererend binnen de Europese Unie. Het Gerecht bekrachtigt de uitspraak van de derde kamer van beroep van het EUIPO en verwerpt het beroep.
70 It follows that the applicant failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that the three disclosure events established by the Board of Appeal could not have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, bearing in mind that a single disclosure event for the purpose of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 is sufficient to find that the contested design lacks novelty.
71 Admittedly, the applicant is right in arguing that it cannot be expected to prove a negative fact. However, far from being required to prove negative facts, the applicant could have adduced positive proof relating, in the present case, for instance, to data showing that, notwithstanding the fact that its website was accessible worldwide, there was no, or very little, actual traffic from users originating in the European Union, or that the Fort Lauderdale Boat Show had not been attended by exhibitors or participants from the European Union , or also that the distribution and retail network for the clogs to which the contested design had been applied was not actually operational and that no order had been placed using that network.
72 Next, in so far as the applicant alleges that the approach followed in the contested decision is inconsistent with that adopted by the Board of Appeal in its decision of 26 August 2013 in Case R 1195/2011-3, suffice it to observe that the issue addressed by the Board of Appeal in that case was whether a given design had actually been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 (see paragraph 19 of that decision) and not the issue invoked by the applicant in its second plea, alleging, without challenging the disclosure events, that the disclosure of the contested design could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned. It follows that there is no inconsistency between the reasoning in the contested decision and the approach adopted by the Board of Appeal in its decision of 26 August 2013 in Case R 1195/2011-3.
73 Lastly, as to the applicant’s argument that only a disclosure that was ‘so widespread so as overcome [the] quantitative hurdle’ would preclude the exception in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 from applying, suffice it to observe that that provision provides no quantitative threshold with regard to actual knowledge of the disclosure events.
74 In the light of all the foregoing, the second plea must be dismissed.
75 Consequently, the action must be dismissed without there being any need to rule on the admissibility of the applicant’s head of claim seeking confirmation of the registration of the contested design and rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2011, Aktieselskabet af 21. november2001 v OHIM — Parfums Givenchy (only givenchy), T‑586/10, not published, EU:T:2011:722, paragraph 67).
76 As to the intervener’s head of claim seeking an order from the Court invalidating the contested design and granting the application for a declaration of invalidity, to the extent that, as concluded in the previous paragraph, the action must be dismissed, the contested decision, which declared the contested design invalid, is confirmed. Accordingly, there is no need to rule on that head of claim.
