Kangeroeschoen is geen vormmerk
Gerecht EU 26 november 2015, IEFbe 1590; T-390/14; ECLI:EU:T:2015:897 (KANGOO JUMPS)
Positie/vormmerk. Établissement Amra vraagt een gemeenschapspositiemerk aan voor Kangoo Jumps, dat wordt geweigerd op absolute gronden vanwege het ontbreken van onderscheidend vermogen. Het beroep wordt afgewezen. Het aangevraagde merk is slechts de som van elementen die een technische, functionele of ornamentele rol vervullen en daarom geen herkomstfunctie heeft.
22 In that connection, first, it should be recalled that it is clear from the case-law that, in so far as the applicant relies on the distinctive character of the mark applied for, notwithstanding the examiner’s findings, the onus is on the applicant to provide specific and substantiated evidence that the trade mark applied for has an intrinsic distinctive character, since it is much better placed to do so, given its thorough knowledge of the market (see judgments of 15 March 2006 in Develey v OHIM (Shape of a plastic bottle), T‑129/04, ECR, EU:T:2006:84, paragraphs 19 and 21 and the case-law cited, and 15 June 2010 in X Technology Swiss v OHIM (Orange colouring of the toe of a sock), T‑547/08, ECR, EU:T:2010:235, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
23 Furthermore, it should be observed that when the Board of Appeal finds that the mark applied for has no intrinsic distinctive character, it may base its examination on the facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are, in particular, known by the consumers of those goods. In such cases, the Board of Appeal is not obliged to give examples of such practical experience (see judgments of 3 February 2011 in Gühring v OHIM (Combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey), T‑299/09 and T‑300/09, EU:T:2011:28, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited, and of 19 September 2012 in Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red), T‑50/11, EU:T:2012:442, paragraph 27).
24 Therefore, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 22 and 23 above, it must be held, first, that it is indeed for the applicant to provide specific and substantiated evidence establishing the distinctive character of the mark applied for and, second, that the Board of Appeal could, where appropriate, base its reasoning on practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods, the goods covered by the mark applied for belonging to that category.
25 Second, it should be recalled that novelty or originality are not relevant criteria for the assessment of the distinctive character of a trade mark, so that, in order for a trade mark to be registered it is not sufficient for it to be original, but it must differ substantially from the basic shapes of the goods concerned, commonly used in trade, and that it does not appear as a simple variant of those shapes (see judgments of 14 September 2009 in Lange Uhren v OHIM (Geometric shapes on a watch face), T‑152/07, EU:T:2009:324, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited and of 11 July 2013 in Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Red shoe lace end caps), T‑208/12, EU:T:2013:376, paragraph 47).
26 As OHIM rightly states, it cannot be held that the applicant’s trade mark, which is essentially composed of two arching springs separated by elastic plastic straps, departs significantly from the basic shape of the goods concerned. The way in which the elements of the mark applied for are combined cannot confer on it a distinctive character. The mark applied for therefore consists of a simple variation of the basic shapes of the goods concerned. The fact that various models of rebound boots exist on the market does not give the model covered by the mark applied for a distinctive character. Even if the lower part of the model of the applicant’s rebound boots could be regarded as unusual that is not sufficient, in the present case, to influence the overall impression made by the mark applied for to such a degree that it could be said to depart significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby to be capable of fulfilling its essential function.
27 Third, it must be stated that the word and figurative elements of the mark applied for, namely the expression ‘kangoo jumps’, placed on the upper and lower spring layer and the groups of letters ‘kj’ and ‘xr’ appearing on the ends of the intermediate elastic plastic straps are extremely minor in the mark applied for, regardless of the quality of the representation of the latter provided by the applicant and, therefore, they are of such a superficial nature that they do not bring any distinctive character to the mark applied for as a whole. In the present case, such elements do not present any aspect enabling that mark to accomplish its essential function as regards the goods and services concerned by the application for registration.
28 Fourth, as regards the argument, that the relevant public is easily able to recognise the shape of the spring mounted on the applicant’s rebound boots as that shape appears in different media such as video clips, magazines or promotional articles, which show that rebound boots carrying the mark applied for are widely distributed in the European Union, it suffices to hold that at no time has the applicant claimed the existence of distinctive character acquired through use, for the goods for which registration is sought, within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. Furthermore, the applicant has not produced any evidence to show that its presence on the market could establish in itself that the mark applied for had intrinsic distinctive character within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 22 above.
29 Therefore, the finding of the Board of Appeal, in paragraph 30 of the contested decision, that the mark applied for as a whole is only the sum of various elements fulfilling a technical, functional or ornamental role and that it is accordingly not capable of indicating the origin of the goods must be upheld.
