Geen terugverwijzing naar oppositieafdeling
.jpg)
Gemeenschapsmerk. Terugverwijzing. Gebruik van ouder merk. In de oppositieprocedure komt aanvrager van woordmerk VÖLKL (kl. 3, 9 en 25) houder van ouder identiek woordmerk VÖLKL (kl. 18, 25 en 28) tegen. Kamer van Beroep verwijst, na vernietiging van beslissing met betrekking tot verwarringsgevaar, terug naar de oppositieafdeling voor verdere afdoening. De aangevoerde middelen:
1. schending van het lijdelijkheidsbeginsel, doordat de kamer van beroep de zaak voor verdere afdoening naar de oppositieafdeling heeft terugverwezen met betrekking tot waren waartegen de oppositie helemaal niet was gericht;
2. schending van het verbod van reformatio in pejus, doordat de kamer van beroep de zaak niet had mogen terugverwijzen naar de oppositieafdeling voor de beoordeling met betrekking tot waren waarvoor de oppositieafdeling de inschrijving reeds had toegestaan;
3. schending van het recht om te worden gehoord;
4. schending van artikel 15(2)(a) (...) doordat de kamer van beroep ten onrechte heeft aangenomen dat het oppositiemerk is gebruikt op een wijze die de verkregen rechten in stand houdt.
Het Gerecht EU wijst de eerste twee en het vierde middel toe, het derde behoeft geen behandeling:
55 That is the situation in the present case. The applicant brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division only in respect of the fact that it had upheld the opposition and rejected the application for registration of the three articles. Moreover, it was not possible for it to appeal against that decision in that it held that the mark applied for could be registered for the other goods which it covered. It follows from the first sentence of Article 59 of Regulation No 207/2009, according to which ‘[a]ny party to proceedings adversely affected by a decision may appeal’, that, inasmuch as the decision of the lower department of OHIM has upheld the claims of a party, that party does not have standing to appeal to the Board of Appeal (order in Case T‑194/05 TeleTech Holdings v OHIM – Teletech International (TELETECH INTERNATIONAL) [2006] ECR II‑1367, paragraph 22).
56 Consequently and as the applicant, in essence, submits by its second plea, by annulling paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Opposition Division relating to the other goods, the Board of Appeal has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction as defined in Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. The second plea is therefore well founded.
57 In any event, it is settled between the parties and, furthermore, confirmed by a reading of the notice of opposition in the procedural file before OHIM, sent to the Court pursuant to Article 133(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that, contrary to the finding in the contested decision, the opposition was indeed restricted to only the three articles. It follows that the first plea is also well founded.
113 It follows that the evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark taken into consideration by the Board of Appeal, namely the invoices and catalogues filed by the intervener, were not sufficient to support the finding in the contested decision that the earlier mark had been genuinely used for the goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 covered by it throughout the period to which those invoices related. At most, that evidence constituted indications that such use might be regarded as probable. In accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 84 above, a mere supposition, however plausible it may be, is not sufficient for the purposes of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, which requires proof of such use.
