Geen geldige reden om merk IMPOSSIBLE niet te gebruiken

Kamer van Beroep EUIPO 17 maart 2023, IEF 21325; R 665/2022-5 (Impossible Foods tegen Nestlé) Merkenzaak, zie eerder IEF 20590. Impossible Foods heeft in 2014 het Uniemerk IMPOSSIBLE geregistreerd. Tot op heden is nog geen sprake van gebruik in de Europese Unie. Impossible Foods voert aan dat een markttoelatingsprocedure in de weg staat aan normaal gebruik en er dus een geldige reden is in de zin van artikel 18(1) Vo. 2017/1001. De Kamer van Beroep verwerpt dit argument. Impossible Foods heeft er zelf voor gekozen om zich eerst te richten op markttoelating in haar thuismarkt en later pas inspanningen te verrichten om in de EU markttoelating te verkrijgen. Bovendien is Impossible Foods niet voortvarend geweest in haar aanvraag, onder meer omdat zij heeft verzuimd de juiste veiligheidsstudies te verrichten. Tot slot heeft Impossible Foods het merk wel gebruikt voor een vervangend product in het Verenigd Koninkrijk, hetgeen zij ook in de EU had kunnen doen.

37. Taking into account all the facts surrounding the late submission of the evidence, the Board deems it equitable to exercise its discretion pursuant to Article 95(2) EUTMR and Article 27(4) EUTMDR and concludes that the additional evidence filed by both parties at the appeal stage is admissible.

66. In this regard, the Board notes that the situation in the case of pharmaceuticals is different to that of the foodstuff sector. A new medicine that is subject to the corresponding approval is normally developed in order to combat a new illness or to improve the results compared to the available medicines or similar. Therefore, the investments in the development of a new drug are very important and it may therefore not be demanded to that company to use an alternative to this medicine, which probably does not even exist. On the contrary, in the foodstuff sector, it is much easier to find an appropriate substitute that can be used and moreover, in the case at hand, as mentioned above in paragraph 58, the EUTM proprietor was able to substitute in the UK the ingredient, ‘Soy LegH’, for another substance because of the ongoing approval process.

67. Consequently, and contrary to the contested decision’s findings and the EUTM proprietor’s view who without any success relies on the ‘Le Chef de Cuisine’ judgment (14/06/2007, C-246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340), the Board finds that in view of the ongoing approval proceedings, which presumably will still go on for a long time, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the EUTM proprietor could reasonably have substituted the substance, called ‘Soy LegH’, for another ingredient in order to comply with its obligation to use the contested mark.

83. The Board however agrees with the revocation applicant who explained and has shown that for the authorisation of the substance, ‘Soy LegH’, at European level there is, in general, the need for a 90-days toxicity study, fact which is even confirmed by the EUTM proprietor itself as well as the witness statement it submitted in Annex 33.

99. In light of the above, the Board concludes that the reason for not being able to use the contested mark is strongly related to the EUTM proprietor’s decision-making and its conduct.