Kleurmerk niet duidelijk gericht op 'rubiks kubus'
 |
 |
Procesrecht. Gemeenschapsmerkrecht. Kleurmerk.
Tegen de afwijzing van de kleurmerkaanvraag heeft Seven Towns Ltd (producent van onder meer de 'Rubix kubus') beroep ingediend. De Kamer van Beroep vernietigt de afwijzing van de gemeenschapsmerkaanvraag. Middel: geen eerbiediging van de beginselen van behoorlijke procesvoering en van het recht van de verzoekster op een eerlijk proces.
Het Gerecht EU verwerpt het beroep. Seven Towns Ltd voert grieven aan met betrekking tot de procedurele afwikkeling van de merkaanvraag. Zij stellen onder meer dat het BHIM het onderzoek onjuist en niet legitiem heeft uitgevoerd. De Kamer van Beroep concludeert dat dit niet het geval is nu door aanvrager het kleurmerk niet voldoende grafisch is weergegeven. Voor een gemiddelde consument blijkt niet uit de merkaanvraag dat het gaat om een kleurmerk voor de vlakken van de zogenaamde 'rubik's kubus'. De aanvrager is er niet in geslaagd een grafische voorstelling van het merk weer te geven. Hierdoor is de merkaanvraag gerechtvaardigd afgewezen. Het beroep wordt derhalve verworpen.
58 Moreover, the Board of Appeal observed that it is highly unlikely that anyone would infer from the information set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 above that the trade mark application had anything to do with the world-famous puzzle known as Rubik’s cube, in respect of which the applicant is the proprietor of a Community three-dimensional trade mark which was published with a description that is substantially the same as the description set out in paragraph 4 above. Consequently, while the Board of Appeal may conclude that the trade mark applied for in the present case is related to Rubik’s cube and that the aforementioned description is intended to describe the systematic arrangement of colours used on Rubik’s cube, the Board of Appeal indicates that it is only able to reach that conclusion as a result of the aforementioned additional information, that is to say after being given some very strong clues about the true nature of the mark applied for. Without those clues and solely on the basis of the information set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 above, the Board of Appeal is of the opinion that ‘a reasonably observant person would not realise that the colour mark applied for in the present case relates to the colour scheme used on the classic version of Rubik’s cube’, which enables it to conclude that ‘[t]he applicant has failed to provide a graphic representation that is clear, concise, easily accessible and intelligible’.
59 Before addressing the applicant’s criticisms of the actual result of the examination set out in the contested decision, it must be noted that the Board of Appeal’s statement in recital 17 of that decision, according to which the examination was undertaken from the point of view of a ‘reasonably observant person with normal levels of perception and intelligence’, must be read by reference to the previous statement, in recital 15, that the category of persons concerned refers in particular to ‘other traders’ who must be able to know the precise scope of the protection granted to the marks already in the register. The entry of the mark in a public register has the aim of making it accessible to the competent authorities and to the public, particularly to economic operators (Heidelberger Bauchemie, cited above in paragraph 50, at paragraph 28), and the persons concerned must therefore be able to find out what signs are protected and adjust their conduct accordingly. As no reason has been put forward in the present case to justify particular characteristics of the consumers or traders concerned, the Board of Appeal’s reference, in recital 17 of the contested decision, to ‘normal levels of perception and intelligence’ is to be interpreted as meaning that the persons concerned are average consumers and traders.
Op andere blogs:
Marques (Rubik's Cube and geometry lesson in General Court)
