Gepubliceerd op maandag 30 november 2009
IEF 8416
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Never appears on its own

GvEA, 30 November 2009, zaak T-353/07, Esber, SA tegen OHIM / Coloris Global Coloring Concept

Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprocedure tegen aanvraag voor gemeenschapsbeeldmerk COLORIS o.g.v. ouder Frans nationaal woordmerk COLORIS (verf e.a.). Oppositie toegewezen. Normaal gebruik ouder merk, ondanks vele toevoegingen.

16. The applicant claims, first, that, in the evidence submitted by the intervener, the mark COLORIS never appears on its own, but exclusively in complex forms (…) The signs used in the evidence are therefore substantially different from the earlier mark.

31. In the present case, the words ‘global coloring concept’ constitute one long word element, and are always juxtaposed with the term ‘coloris’ and positioned below it. In the evidence submitted, the size of the letters in those words is never greater than that in the term ‘coloris’. In contrast, in a number of items of evidence those words are appreciably smaller than the term ‘coloris’, and their position is thus clearly secondary. In addition, they are words with a general meaning. Furthermore, the word ‘coloring’ refers to the goods concerned and, consequently, has a certain descriptive character.

32. Similar considerations apply to the word element ‘gcc’. (…)

33. In the light of those considerations, it must be concluded that the word elements which accompany the earlier word mark COLORIS do not affect its distinctive character.

34. As for the figurative element representing the globe, it does not alter the distinctive character of the earlier word mark either. It is a generic representation which is not reproduced in a particularly creative or unusual way. (…)

36. In conclusion, it follows from the foregoing that the complex forms, including the earlier word mark, used in certain items of evidence do not have any differences which alter the distinctive character of the earlier mark, within the meaning of Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94. Consequently, the Board of Appeal did not err when it took those signs into consideration for the purpose of assessing the evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark.

50. It must therefore be concluded that, considered as a whole, the evidence submitted by the intervener to OHIM supports the finding of the Board of Appeal that genuine use of the earlier mark in the course of the relevant period in France had been established.

Lees het arrest hier