Gerecht EU Wolf II: verwatering en free-riding

Gerecht EU 5 februari 2015, IEFbe 1195; T--570/10 RENV; ECLI:EU:T:2015:76 (Environmental Manufacturing/OHIM - Wolf)
Na IEF 13223 en IEF 11342. Verwateringsgevaar, gevaar voor free-riding. De interveniënt heeft bij de procedure bij het OHIM geen mogelijke verandering van het economisch consumentengedrag genoemd, daarom de kamer van beroep onterecht aangenomen dat verwatering optrad. De redenering van de kamer van beroep was niet duidelijk gericht op het verwaterings- of 'free-riding' aspect. Het Gerecht EU vernietigt het besluit van de tweede Board of Appeal van OHIM.

39      In this instance, the Court of Justice pointed out, in paragraphs 38 and 44 of its judgment, that the General Court erred in law by failing to criticise, in disregard of the case-law cited in its own judgment, the Board of Appeal’s failure to conduct an analysis of the effects of the use of the mark applied for on the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods covered by the earlier marks.

40      In that regard, it must be noted that, contrary to what it suggests, the intervener did not put forward any argument before OHIM to establish the existence of a risk of the consumer of the goods in respect of which the earlier marks were registered changing his economic behaviour. As the applicant points out, the intervener did not mention, during the proceedings before OHIM, the possibility of any change in the economic behaviour of the consumer.

41      In those circumstances, the applicant’s complaint alleging infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be upheld, in so far as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that there was a risk of dilution.

43      As the applicant’s complaint challenging the risk of dilution was upheld in paragraphs 36 to 42 of the present judgment, it is now for the General Court to verify whether the Board of Appeal was justified in finding that there was a risk of free-riding in the present case.

46      The intervener submits that it provided proof that the earlier marks have been used in trade for decades and that they have been continuously promoted. The risks of misappropriation of the reputation of the earlier marks are all the more obvious in that the use of a mark with a canine’s head in the sector concerned is unique and that the goods are identical or at least highly similar. In that regard, the applicant never explained the reasons which led it to choose precisely the sign represented in the mark applied for. The combination of the reputation of the mark and the similarity of the goods may, according to the intervener, suffice to establish that there is a risk of free-riding. Finally, the intervener submits that, as the ground of dilution is well-founded, the Board of Appeal could include it in its assessment of the risk of free-riding. In any event, the dilution is only one of the aspects of the global assessment of the risk of free-riding carried out by the Board of Appeal.
65      In the light of the above, the applicant’s second complaint, alleging infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as the Board of Appeal found that there was a risk of free-riding, must be upheld.

65      In the light of the above, the applicant’s second complaint, alleging infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as the Board of Appeal found that there was a risk of free-riding, must be upheld.