According to normal parlance
Met dank aan Joris van manen, Hoyng Monegier LLP.
Merkenrecht. Nietigheidsprocedure. Verzoekster meent dat de term 'raw' een bepaalde betekenis heeft die duidelijk verwijst naar het karakter van de goederen die worden verhandeld, namelijk textuur en kwaliteit. Betekenissen uit woordenboeken, wikipedia en google zoekresultaten zijn erbij gehaald om het verzoek te ondersteunen.
De houder van het gemeenschapswoordmerk RAW meent dat door de gemiddelde consument geen verband wordt gelegd met de goederen waarvoor het merk is geregistreerd. Subsidiair gesteld heeft RAW een tweede betekenis gekregen door langdurige en intensief gebruik in reclame door de merknaamhouder.
Cancellation Division volgt G-Star en het verzoek tot nietigheidsverklaring wordt afgewezen. De verzoekster zal de kosten dragen van de merknaamhouder ad €450.
(8) The CTM proprietor claims that, for the average consumer, the term "raw" does not have any meaning in connection with the goods for which the CTM is registered, and therefore that it is not descriptive. It argues that the normal meaning of this English word is "nog cooked" of "not processed" and submits copies of the corresponding entries in several dictionaries to support it. It further argues that it is not relevant that on the internet some information can be found where the word "raw" is used in connection with certain textiles, a certain cut, or a certain clothing style or design, since these meanings may be readily known by insiders in the fashion industry but cannot be considered to be the common meaning of the word "raw" according to normal parlance. The CTM proprietor claims that the documents filed by the applicant show that "raw" is an adjective with a variety of meanings and that is has to be used together with a noun (such as raw cut, raw denim or raw cotton) in order for the consumer to determine a specific meaning.
Onder Article 7(1)(c) CTMR:
(20) As the applicant itself has argued, the adjective "raw" has a variety of meanings depending on the context, and in particular of the noun which follows it. The term "raw" on its own, used in connection with the clothing, footwear, headgear and belts, will just bring to mind its most common meanings, i.e. "uncooked, unprocessed, unfinished", which cannot be considered to be descriptive of the good in question, which by definition are finished products. At most, the relevant consumer could consider, after some reflection, that the term might be suggestive or allusive to the kind of fabric used to make the goods e.g. raw denim, raw cotton) or to a "rough" style, but even then it is not clear to which of these two different meanings it refers. In other words, the contested CTM does not enable the relevant public to establish a specific and direct relationship between the sign and the goods in question immediately, and without further thought.
