Gerecht EU week 47 2012
Merkenrecht. We beperken ons tot een wekelijks overzicht van de (voortgezette oppositie)beslissingen van het Gerecht EU. Ditmaal over:
(A) Italiaanse vertaling van Yellow Pages
(B) Domeinnaam kan als merk worden geregistreerd
(C) Overeenstemmende tekens ARTIS en ARTIS
Gerecht EU 20 november 2012, zaak T-589/11(Phonebook of the World / OHMI - Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE))
(A) Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1541/20102 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 4 augustus 2011, houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de beslissing van de nietigheidsafdeling tot afwijzing van de vordering tot nietigverklaring die door verzoekster tegen het woordmerk „PAGINE GIALLE” voor waren en diensten van de klassen 16 en 35 is ingesteld. Beroep wordt afgewezen, beschrijvend merk, geen onderscheidend vermogen.
43 In that connection, it must be found that the numerous references made by the applicant to official texts, historical texts and to websites are irrelevant. The applicant fails to show that EU consumers are able to make a connection between the Italian expression ‘pagine gialle’ and the equivalent expressions in other languages of the European Union. All of those texts refer to the use of the terms ‘yellow pages’ and ‘white pages’ in the official languages of the States concerned or in the languages understood there, but give no indication as to the understanding of those terms in other languages.
44 As regards the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 March 2002, the applicant has misinterpreted paragraph 25 of that decision. The Board of Appeal simply stated that the proprietor of the Community trade mark YELLOW PAGES could not claim a private right over any translation of the expression ‘yellow pages’ into other languages, such as the Italian translation ‘pagine gialle’. Moreover, in paragraph 24 of that decision, the Board of Appeal found that average English-speaking consumers did not understand the meaning of the Italian expression ‘pagine gialle’. Accordingly, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 March 2002 is, in any event, more likely to confirm the Board of Appeal’s analysis in the contested decision than to cast doubt upon it.
Gerecht EU 21 november 2012, zaak T-338/11(Getty Images / OHMI (PHOTOS.COM))
(B) Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1831/20102 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 6 april 2011 houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de gedeeltelijke weigering van de onderzoeker om het woordmerk „PHOTOS.COM” in te schrijven voor waren en diensten van de klassen 9, 42 en 45. Beroep wordt afgewezen. Het beroep wordt afgewezen, tekens die ook gebruikt worden voor een domeinnaam zijn niet uitgezonderd om een merkenrechtelijke functie te vervullen. In dit geval is er echter geen onderscheidend vermogen, er is geen onderscheidend vermogen verkregen door het gebruik. Ook op Marques-blog.
58. Furthermore, although the registration of a mark composed of signs or indications which are also used to designate a domain name is not thereby excluded as such, a sign which fulfils functions other than that of a trade mark is distinctive only if it can be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question (...). However, contrary to the claims made by the applicant, the fact that its website is accessible worldwide, so that anyone can access it from anywhere and obtain information on the goods and services offered, does not mean that the domain name which the applicant owns has also fulfilled the function of a trade mark for the goods and services for which the registration is sought. As the Board of Appeal correctly found, the documents referred to in paragraph 56 above are not relevant for the purposes of demonstrating that those visitors to the website actually used the services offered by the mark applied for. In so far as the trade mark application corresponds to a domain name, the fact that internet users visit the site on which the goods and services are offered is not sufficient to establish that use has been made of that mark for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
60 Nor can the Court accept the applicant’s argument that the fact that the declaration made by the director of its legal department attests to the date on which the data concerning the number of visitors to its website were generated is sufficient to mean that those data constitute solid proof concerning the use made of the mark applied for on the internet. Even supposing that that declaration indicated the date on which the lists of visitors were compiled for the purposes of the case-law cited in paragraph 51 above, the fact remains that the lists, in themselves, are devoid of probative value, because, in accordance with paragraph 58 above, the number of visitors to the applicant’s website cannot establish that that mark has acquired distinctive character through use.
Gerecht EU 21 november 2012, zaak T-558/11(Atlas / OHMI - Couleurs de Tollens (ARTIS))
(C) Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de aanvrager van het woordmerk „ARTIS” voor waren van de klassen 2 en 17, en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1253/20101 van de eerste kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 28 juli 2011 houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de weigering van de oppositieafdeling om dit merk in te schrijven in het kader van de oppositie ingesteld door de houder van het Franse woordmerk "ARTIS" voor waren van de klassen 1 en 19. Beroep wordt afgewezen, tekens zijn overeenstemmend.
45 In the present case, in the light of the identical nature of the signs at issue, the similarity of the goods in question and the fact that those goods are aimed at the same public, composed of DIY enthusiasts and professionals, it must be held that, contrary to what the applicant claims, the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between those signs within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Since the applicant’s arguments concerning, inter alia, the relevant public and the goods covered by the signs at issue and, in particular, their intended purpose and their method of use have been rejected, they cannot call in question that finding.
46 It follows from the foregoing that the single plea in law must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.
