Magenta kleurmerk nietig verklaard in de Benelux (I)

Benelux Bureau voor de Intellectuele Eigendom 23 augustus 2024, IEF 22208; zaaknr. 3000493 (Lebara/Deutsche Telekom) In deze uitspraak oordeelt het Benelux Bureau voor de Intellectuele Eigendom (hierna: het BBIE) over de geldigheid van het Benelux magenta kleurmerk (BX 1450348) van Deutsche Telekom AG, naar aanleiding van een doorhalingsprocedure gestart door Lebara B.V. (die nog twee doorhalingsprocedures startte). Het BBIE verklaart het kleurmerk nietig.

Lebara verzocht doorhaling van het kleurmerk op twee gronden: omdat het merk geen 'teken' bevat dat een merk kan vormen (art. 2.2bis lid 1 onder a BVIE), en omdat het merk elk onderscheidend vermogen mist (art. 2.2bis lid 1 onder b BVIE).

Het BBIE verklaart het merk nietig omdat het merk ab initio onderscheidend vermogen mist, en de houder van het merk niet heeft bewezen dat het merk door gebruik onderscheidend vermogen in de gehele Benelux heeft verkregen. Omdat het merk nietig wordt verklaard op de tweede grond, onderzoekt het BBIE de eerste en derde grond niet verder. De vraag of een louter abstracte, niet aan een vorm of contour gebonden, kleur in een merkinschrijving voldoet aan het 'tekenvereiste', zoals ontwikkeld in de rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie in onder meer Libertel (C-104/01), Heidelberger Bauchemie (C-49/02) en Dyson (C-321/03), wordt daarom niet verder onderzocht.

24. So although a colour per se normally does not constitute a sign, it may constitute a sign, depending on the context in which it is used. Contrary to the claimant's view, there is no requirement that this context be stated in the registration. After all, a colour mark concerns a colour per se, without any shape or contours. The requirements for colour marks are not necessarily the same as those applicable to other types of marks, to which the claimant refers. [6. CJEU 25 January 2007, C-321/03, ECLI:EU:C:2007:51 (Dyson), CJEU 24 June 2004, C-49/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:384 (Heidelberger Bauchemie).]

25. The Office therefore considers that, as far as register data is concerned, there are no requirements other than a clear and precise representation as referred to in Article 2.1(b) BCIP. If a colour per se meets that requirement, it is not necessarily a sign (usually not), but that depends on its use, more specifically whether the colour is capable of conveying specific information, in particular as to the origin of a product or service. This question is obviously narrowly related to the question of whether it possesses distinctive character. It seems logical that when a single colour is perceived as a distinctive trademark, it is thereby also a sign. The Office will therefore first further examine the second ground invoked, the distinctive character of the (presumed) sign.

33. The defendant provided a comprehensive overview of its commercial activities and the use made of the contested trademark and submitted a large quantity of supporting evidence. The defendant is obviously one of the largest telecom providers in the world, and has used the colour magenta in a consequent way for decades, either himself or through economically related entities, in many different manners: as part of its logo, in shops, websites, packaging, sim-cards, commercials, sponsoring activities, events, news items, etc... In the Netherlands, the defendant has been active under the name T-Mobile as one of (only) three telecom providers with their own physical network. From a market survey submitted by the defendant, it follows that around 60% of the respondents in the Netherlands, when shown the colour magenta and asked what comes to mind in relation to telecom services or products, reply that they think of the defendant. In Belgium and Luxembourg, the defendant seems not to be active as a telecom provider, at least not in the consumer market. The defendant claims to have been active in Belgium under the name T-Systems, but those activities appear to be more business-to-business and not aimed at the general public, to which the services are (also) directed, and are in any case considerably less intensive than in the Netherlands. As the defendant correctly points out (supra, point 16), this does not necessarily preclude acquired distinctiveness, since the public can also become known with a trademark in other ways than by its actual presence on the market or by actually buying or using a product or service. However, it does make acquired distinctiveness less likely. While the defendant has certainly shown that the Benelux public outside the Netherlands has also been or may have been confronted with the sign in a variety of ways, the Office considers that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that as a result, that part of the public has actually come to recognise it as a trademark. As the circumstances and extent of use in the Netherlands are clearly different from those in Belgium and Luxembourg, the results of the market survey also cannot be extrapolated.

34. The Office concludes that the defendant has failed to prove that the colour magenta has acquired distinctiveness as a trademark throughout the Benelux.

37. Based on the above factors, the Office finds that the contested trademark is (ab initio) devoid of distinctive character, and that acquired distinctiveness has not been proven.

38. Since the claim is upheld on the second ground for invalidity (Article 2.2bis(1)(b) BCIP), there is no need to further examine the first ground for invalidity (Article 2.2bis(1)(a) BCIP), nor the third ground for revocation (Article 2.27(2) BCIP).