Geen bewijs normaal gebruik CardioMessenger
Gerecht EU 25 oktober 2013, zaak T-416/11 (Biotronik SE / OHMI - Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER)) - dossier
Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep door de houder van het nationale woordmerk „CardioMessenger” voor waren van de klassen 9 en 10 ingesteld en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1156/20102 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 27 mei 2011 houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling tot afwijzing van de oppositie die door verzoekster tegen inschrijving van het woordmerk „CARDIO MANAGER” voor waren van de klassen 9 en 10 is ingesteld. Het beroep wordt afgewezen. Er is geen bewijs geleverd van eerder merkgebruik van het ouder merk.
39 Similarly, as regards the scientific publications in the journal Das Krankenhaus (published in 2003), and in a number of specialist journals – Kardiotechnik (published in 2003), MT-Info Medizintechnik (published in 2004), Journal of Electrocardiology (published in 2004) and Zeitschrift für Kardiologie (published in 2005) – as well as the article which appeared in the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper (in 2005), these establish the existence and function of a device called ‘CardioMessenger’, but do not provide any indication as to the extent of use. Admittedly, the publications mention a new method of remote cardiac monitoring, including Biotronik’s ‘Home Monitoring’ system; they describe how such a system operates; they describe a pilot phase; and they mention the fact that, in 2003, 1 500 patients worldwide already had a device which made remote monitoring possible and that research had shown the positive experience felt by those patients (sense of security). However, those publications do not really refer to the CardioMessenger trade mark itself. Furthermore, even if it is true that in 2003 there were already 1 500 patients worldwide using a remote monitoring system, the number of patients established solely in Germany, the relevant country, is not given. Nor is it stated in that context that the 1 500 patients in question were using Biotronik’s system. Similarly, the only information to emerge from the article published in the journal Ärzte Zeitung in 2005 is that 14 000 implanted devices existing in Germany are defined as having a ‘Telemonitoring-Funktion’, there being no express reference to the device known under the trade mark CardioMessenger; nor is there any express reference to the extent and nature of use. The documents mentioned above thus contain no specific details regarding the volume of sales, advertising or the extent of use.
40 The same is true of the extracts from an instruction manual for the CardioMessenger product, the Internet pages and the product packaging. In this connection, it should be noted that that manual relates only to the way in which the patient is to use the product and that it does not provide any additional solid evidence of use of the trade mark. It is not possible to extract from the manual the information necessary for verifying that use, such as the place of sale, the sales systems and the quantities of goods sold. That finding applies also to the product packaging for the CardioMessenger kit and to the Internet pages.
41 Lastly, as regards the formal statement referred to in paragraph 28 of the contested decision, it should be observed that that statement does indeed indicate the number of patients worldwide who, between 2000 and 2009, were provided with the ‘CardioMessenger’ device as an integral part of a ‘Home Monitoring’ system and the percentage of those patients who were in Germany. However, as the Board of Appeal noted, that formal statement fails to set out essential information such as the market price for the devices, the nature of the distributors, the market share of the product, sales and advertising turnover, the sales outlets in Germany or the existence of customers. In any case, it should be borne in mind that the value of a statement from the applicant, such as the statement under consideration, is lower than the value of a statement from an independent source and the information contained in it must be borne out by other information, which is not the position in the present case (see, to that effect, Case T‑303/03 Lidl Stiftung v OHIM – REWE–Zentral (Salvita) [2005] ECR II‑1917, paragraph 45).
42 It follows from the above, therefore, that the Board of Appeal was right in finding that proof of use of the trade mark CardioMessenger had not been produced. Consequently, the first plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.
