Basgitaar
HvJ EG, 7 juni 2007, conclusie A-G Sharpston in zaak C-301/05 P. Hans-Peter Wilfer tegen OHIM. (nog geen Nederlandse versie beschikbaar).
Weigering om het woordmerk ROCKBASS in te schrijven als Gemeenschapsmerk voor muziekinstrumenten en accessoires daarvoor. Het merk zou beschrijvend zijn. “It is surely self-evident that one of the intended purposes of a bass guitar is to play rock music.”
Weinig opzienbarende conclusie. De A-G concludeert dat eerdere oordeel van het Gerecht correct was en dat het beroep tegen de weigering verworpen zou moeten worden. Dat Rock Bass ook een soort baars is, doet bijvoorbeeld niet af aan de beschrijvendheid van het woord voor muziekinstrumenten e.d.
“31. Mr Wilfer submits as his fourth ground of appeal that the Court of First Instance did not take account of other possible meanings of the word ‘rockbass’. In German, the English word ‘rock’ has more than 25 different meanings and the word ‘bass’ at least six, of which the musical one is extremely multifactorial. Moreover the German word ‘Rock’ has at least five different meanings and the word ‘Bass’ at least four. Mr Wilfer had indicated before the Court of First Instance that the term ‘rockbass’ could accordingly have numerous meanings. That Court, without giving any reasons, failed to take account of this, thereby distorting or falsifying Mr Wilfer’s explanation and breaching the requirement to give reasons. Moreover, neither the contested decision nor the internet sites to which the Board of Appeal referred therein suggest that the term ‘rockbass’ is likely to be commonly used in trade to designate an electric bass guitar intended for playing rock music. The Court of First Instance therefore also distorted the facts on which its judgment is based and breached the requirement to give reasons.
32. Mr Wilfer submits as his fifth ground of appeal that, in holding that the mark ROCKBASS was not unusual in structure, the Court of First Instance did not take into account not only that the term could have many different meanings but also that it had many possible grammatical permutations e.g. noun/noun, verb/adjective etc. In ignoring this explanation, the Court of First Instance deformed the facts on which its judgment is based and breached the requirement to give reasons.
33. With regard to the fourth ground of appeal, it suffices to note that the Court has ruled that a word must be refused registration if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.”
Aardig is ook nog:
“44. At the hearing counsel for Mr Wilfer emphasised that the ‘rock bass’ style of music is not a distinctive characteristic of goods or of musical instruments. Again, however, I do not see how that argument assists Mr Wilfer. It is surely self-evident that one of the intended purposes of a bass guitar is to play rock music. That statement will not become less true if a given person buys a bass guitar with the (possibly misguided) idea of playing classical music on it. Still less is it undermined by the example provided by counsel for Mr Wilfer, who argued that its logical conclusion is that the Honda Jazz trade mark is unregistrable because it is possible to play jazz music in cars.”
Lees de conclusie hier.
