Complementaire productlijn

Gerecht EU 22 juni 2011, zaak T-76/09 (Mundipharma tegen OHIM-Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi)

Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk. Beeldmerkaanvrage FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI (geneesmiddelen), oppositie obv Gemeenschapsmerk MUNDI PHARMA. Complementaire en subsidiaire productlijn, maakt het nog geen soortgelijke waren en/of diensten. Bevestiging gedeeltelijke afwijzing door oppositiedivisie.

29      However, even where the goods in Class 5 covered by the earlier trade mark and the ‘storage, distribution, delivery and packaging of pharmaceutical, sanitary and dietetic preparations’ services in Class 39 covered by the trade mark applied for show some kind of connection between them, in particular in so far as the manufacture and sale of those goods may also involve their storage, delivery, distribution and packaging, that fact is not sufficient for them to be considered complementary in the present case.

30      It should be noted that there is nothing in the file that invalidates the Board of Appeal’s finding, supported by OHIM in its response, that, in essence, the relevant public for ‘storage, distribution, delivery and packaging of pharmaceutical, sanitary and dietetic preparations’ is made up of professionals, while the end consumer of pharmaceutical preparations will buy them, inter alia, from a pharmacy without using those services. As has already been mentioned in paragraph 26, the applicant does not dispute the Board of Appeal’s finding that the relevant public for which the services and goods are intended is different. By definition, goods and services intended for different publics cannot be complementary (see, to that effect, easyHotel, paragraphs 57 and 58).

Lees het arrest hier (link)