Autonoom rechtsysteem
Gerecht EU 22 november 2011, zaak T-561/10 (LG Electronics tegen OHMI, inzake DIRECT DRIVE)
Merkenrecht. Aanvrage gemeenschapswoordmerk DIRECT DRIVE. Absolute weigeringsgronden: beschrijvend karakter en afwezigheid ervan. Drive wordt door relevante Engelstalige publiek gezien als beschrijving van technische aspecten van de goederen. Dat het OHIM niet heeft gekeken naar , of rekening gehouden heeft met eerdere registraties, zoals een Canadese, doet er niet aan af dat het Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht een autonoom rechtssysteem is. Gerecht neemt aan dat er geen fouten zijn gemaakt, dus beroep is ongegrond .
33 Moreover, the applicant refers to a word mark registered in Canada and another word mark applied for in that country, two marks that are identical or similar to the mark applied for and concern comparable products. It submits that, although the relevant provisions of Canadian law are not dissimilar to those applicable to the registration of Community trade marks, since trade marks that are clearly descriptive are not eligible for registration, no absolute ground for refusal has been raised against those signs. Furthermore, Canada belongs to the linguistic area in which the mark applied for originated.
34 In that regard, it is sufficient to recall that the Community trade mark regime is an autonomous legal system which pursues objectives peculiar to it; it applies independently of any national system (Case T‑32/00 Messe München v OHIM (electronica) [2000] ECR II-3829, paragraph 47; see, to that effect, judgment of 21 January 2009 in Case T‑399/06 giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY), not published in the ECR, paragraph 46). Consequently, the registrability or protectability of a sign as a Community mark must be assessed by reference only to the relevant Community rules. Accordingly, OHIM and, as the case may be, the European Union judicature are not bound by a decision given in a Member State, or indeed a third country, that the sign in question is registrable as a national mark. That is so even if such a decision was adopted in a country belonging to the linguistic area in which the word mark in question originated (see, to that effect, Case T‑471/07 Wella v OHIM (TAME IT) [2009] ECR II‑3377, paragraph 35).
