Gepubliceerd op woensdag 26 september 2018
IEFBE 2738
Gerecht EU - Tribunal UE ||
26 sep 2018
Gerecht EU - Tribunal UE 26 sep 2018, IEFBE 2738; ECLI:EU:T:2018:604 (Puma tegen Doosan Machine Tools), https://ie-forum.be/artikelen/puma-doet-bij-gerecht-eu-alsnog-succesvol-beroep-op-onderscheidend-vermogen-door-gebruik-van-haar-me

Puma doet bij Gerecht EU alsnog succesvol beroep op onderscheidend vermogen door gebruik van haar merk

Gerecht EU 26 september 2018, IEF 17988; IEFbe 2738; ECLI:EU:T:2018:604 (Puma tegen Doosan Machine Tools) Merkenrecht. Doosan registreert het beeldmerk PUMA voor klasse 7: "Lathes; CNC (computer numerical control) lathes; machining centres; turning centre; electric discharge machine". Puma doet voor de oppositie-afdeling en bij board of appeal een niet-succesvol beroep op haar eerdere beeldmerken, omdat er geen gelijkenis is tussen de goederen. Het Gerecht EU oordeelt dat de Board of Appeal niet de bekendheid van het eerdere PUMA-merk door het gebruik ervan.

62      At the hearing, the applicant reiterated that, in its opinion, the Board of Appeal had not correctly taken into consideration the degree of reputation of the earlier marks, observing that it was impossible to watch a sporting event without encountering those marks which sponsored, in particular, the top European football teams and were associated with the best known athletes.

77      In the present case, the Board of Appeal did not establish that the goods designated by the earlier marks — use of which has been demonstrated by the applicant — may possess the qualities of strength and power or that the term ‘puma’ therefore alluded to the characteristics of those goods. In paragraph 36 of the contested decision, it merely indicated that the word element ‘puma’ designated a large feline known for its strength and its power, and therefore alluded to all kinds of goods which possess those characteristics (see paragraph 36 of the contested decision).

85      It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 68 to 71, 77 and 78 above that the Board of Appeal, first, did not properly take account of the degree of reputation relied on by the applicant and, secondly, did not properly assess the degree of inherent distinctive character of the earlier marks in its examination of whether there was a link between the marks at issue in the mind of the relevant public.

86      It should be recalled that the strength of the reputation and the degree of distinctive character, inherent or acquired by use, of the earlier marks may have a significant effect on the assessment of whether there is a link between the marks at issue.