Toepassing van jurisprudentie 3D-vormmerken op 2D-representatie beeldmerk is toegestaan
HvJ EU 15 mei 2014, zaak C-97/12P, IEFbe 823 (Vuitton Malletier / BHIM) - dossier
Hogere voorziening tegen Gerecht EU [IEFbe 127], waarbij het Gerecht gedeeltelijk het beroep van houdster van het gemeenschapsbeeldmerk, dat een sluitmechanisme weergeeft, heeft toegewezen. Het beroep wordt afgewezen. Het Gerecht EU heeft geen fout begaan door de toepassing van jurisprudentie over driedimensionale merken op een tweedimensioneel beeldmerk.
The first part of the single ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in applying to the mark at issue the case-law relating to three-dimensional marks
54 It follows from that latter finding that the case-law relating to three-dimensional marks must be applicable also where only part of the product designated is represented by a mark. As the General Court noted in paragraph 25 of the judgment under appeal, such a mark no more consists of a sign independent of the appearance of the product it designates than a figurative mark representing the entire product (order in Wilfer v OHIM, paragraph 59).
55 Contrary to Louis Vuitton’s submissions, even if the application of the case-law relating to three-dimensional and figurative marks constituted, respectively, by the shape of the product concerned or by a representation of that shape presupposes the existence of a link between the mark and that product which will be recognised by the relevant public, such a mark need not be perceived as an essential part of the product concerned. Accordingly, the General Court correctly held in paragraph 27 of the judgment under appeal that a figurative mark constituted by part of the shape of the product which it designates is not independent of the appearance of the product it designates in so far as the relevant public perceives it, immediately and without particular thought, as a representation of a particularly interesting or attractive detail of the product in question rather than as an indication of its commercial origin.
56 Consequently, the General Court did not err in law in referring to the case-law applicable to three-dimensional marks. Accordingly, the argument relied upon in this connection in support of the first part of the single ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.
64 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the first part of that single ground, which is in part unfounded and in part inadmissible, must be rejected in its entirety.
