Of vital importance
Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk. Aanvraag Gemeenschapswoordmerk. Oppositieprocedure. Twee of drie strepen. Het (niet) vertalen van essentiële elementen of het afleiden van type (in dit geval) driedimensionaal merk is van vitaal belang.
Oppositie door ouder nationaal merk voor een schoen met drie strepen op de zijkant tegen schoen met twee strepen. Relatieve weigeringsgrond: (niet) slagen in bewijs van ouder recht, of vertalen van essentiële elementen (sonstige Markenform), waarmee word gedoeld op driedimensionaal merk, om registratie ouder merk te bewijzen. Klacht (van adidas) wordt afgewezen. Is dit de eerste opening naar toestaan van tweestrepige driedimensionale merken?
Curia: Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de houder van het nationale beeldmerk bestaande in de afbeelding van een schoen met drie strepen op de zijkant voor waren van klasse 25, en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 849/2007-2 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 27 augustus 2008 houdende vernietiging van de weigering van de oppositieafdeling om het beeldmerk bestaande in de afbeelding van een schoen met twee strepen op de zijkant in te schrijven voor waren van de klassen 18, 25 en 28 in het kader van de door verzoekster ingestelde oppositie Gemeenschapsbeeldmerk voor een schoen met twee strepen op de zijkant.
48 In the present case, it is apparent from the graphic representation submitted by the applicant on 29 November 2004 that the earlier mark is represented by a shoe, which is, moreover, one of the goods in respect of which registration was sought, namely, goods in Class 25. Thus, where the earlier mark consists of the shape of the product itself, it will be necessary to take into consideration the shape of the product as a whole in order to assess the mark’s distinctiveness. On the other hand, where the earlier mark is a figurative mark, even if the overall impression has to be taken into account, any graphic elements present are likely to assume a greater or lesser importance in the assessment of the distinctiveness of that mark. It follows from this that, if the earlier mark is a three-dimensional mark, it may be found to be less distinctive and, therefore, enjoy a more limited protection than that likely to be afforded to a figurative mark.
49 Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case, in which it is not possible a priori to deduce the type of the earlier mark at issue from the graphic representation, the indication of the type of mark was of vital importance in the context of the opposition proceedings, and it was for the applicant to communicate that indication to OHIM so that the latter could ascertain the scope of the mark’s protection. In that connection, the Court cannot draw any inference from the fact that, in its letter of 29 November 2004, the applicant used the expression ‘the earlier … national figurative marks’ in a general fashion, without further explanation, to allude to the earlier national marks as a whole.
57 First, as OHIM correctly points out, in its pleading filed with the Board of Appeal on 30 July 2007, the intervener referred to the applicant’s earlier mark as a figurative mark, whereas, according to the extract from the online register of the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, the mark is in fact an ‘other type of mark’ (‘sonstige Markenform’). It follows from this that, contrary to the applicant’s claim, the intervener had been misled as to the type of the earlier mark because that entry had not been translated into the language of the proceedings.
58 Next, the extract from the earlier mark’s international registration, annexed to the pleading filed with the Board of Appeal on 30 July 2007 by the intervener, does not contain any information relating either to the mark’s type or to its legal and procedural status. The submission of that extract does not therefore prove that the intervener had in fact acquainted itself with that information. In addition, even if, as the applicant maintains, the extract from the international registration may prove that the German mark at issue is registered and valid, the fact remains that, since the extract contains no information relating to the type of the mark or its legal and procedural status, its submission cannot dispel the doubts caused by the lack of translation of that information in the extract from the online register of the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt.
