Een cilindrisch gevormde fles mist onderscheidend vermogen
Gerecht EU 28 mei 2013, zaak T-178/11 (Voss of Norway/OHMI - Nordic Spirit) - dossier
Gemeenschapsmerk. Vormmerk. Beroep ingesteld door de houder van het driedimensionale merk in de vorm van een fles voor waren van de klassen 32 en 33, strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 785/2010-1 van de eerste kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 12 januari 2011, waarbij is vernietigd de beslissing van de nietigheidsafdeling houdend afwijzing van de door Nordic Spirit AB ingestelde vordering tot nietigverklaring en waarbij dit merk is nietig verklaard.
Het beroep wordt verworpen. Het is algemeen bekend dat de meeste flessen een cilindrische vorm gebruiken. De gemiddelde gebruiker ziet de 'perfecte cilinder' dan ook niet als significant afwijkend van wat in deze sector gebruikelijk is.
51 As regards, firstly, the three-dimensional shape of the registered trade mark, it is well known that the vast majority of bottles available on the market have a cylindrical section. Therefore, the average consumer will naturally expect beverage bottles – alcoholic or non-alcoholic – mostly having that shape. Thus, the ‘perfect cylinder’ shape of the applicant’s bottle, although somewhat original, cannot be regarded as departing significantly from the norms and customs of the sector.
52 Next, as regards the non-transparent cap having the same diameter as the bottle itself, that, too, can hardly be considered to depart significantly from the norms and customs of the sector, as it is well known that many bottles are closed with a cap made of a different material and colour from the body of the bottle.
53 Nor can the diameter of the cap, which is the same as the bottle’s and is a mere variant of the existing shapes, be regarded as departing significantly from the norms and customs of the sector, even though it is somewhat original.
54 Consequently, the Board of Appeal’s reasoning in regards to those three assessments is not vitiated by any error.
59 The Board of Appeal therefore made no error in finding that the average consumer in the European Union would perceive the contested trade mark, as a whole, merely as a variant of the shape of the goods for which registration of that trade mark is sought.
89 It should be noted, however, that this plea is lacking a factual basis, since the Board of Appeal did not base itself on the marking on the bottle and on the display of the sign Voss on the bottle in its assessment of there being no significant departure from the norms and customs of the sector as set out in paragraphs 36 to 41 of the contested decision.
90 The Board of Appeal was therefore correct in finding that the registered trade mark was devoid of distinctive character and that it could not really be distinguished from the forms of packaging frequently used in the beverages sector, but rather was a variant of those shapes (see, to that effect, Case T‑399/02 Eurocermex v OHIM (Shape of a beer bottle), paragraph 43 above, paragraph 33).
95 In the present case, even if the pleas directed against the first pillar of OHIM’s decision are well founded, that fact has no bearing on the operative part of the contested decision, since the second pillar is not vitiated by illegality. Even if the Board of Appeal was wrong in finding that it is well known that beverages are almost always sold in bottles displaying a label or a verbal or graphic sign, that those are indications enabling consumers to distinguish between the different products on the market and that the applicant did not adduce any evidence in support of its assertions to the contrary, those considerations still have no bearing on the finding that the contested trade mark lacks distinctive character, based on the legal assessments set out in paragraphs 46 to 91 above.
