Onafhankelijke voorvering

GvEA. 12 december 2008, zaak T-462/05, JTEKT Corp tegen OHIM (Nederlandse vertaling nog niet beschikbaar).

Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. Onterechte weigering  woordmerk IFS (motorvoetuigen e.d.). IFS (independent front suspension) is toch niet beschrijvend volgens het Gerecht, althans, dat het OHIM dat niet afdoende heeft bewezen (document zoek).

“38. In that regard, OHIM merely stated that it was logical for any specialist in mechanics, aware of the interference caused by divergent movements of the wheels, to assume that a steering or power steering system called ‘IFS’ is designed to achieve specific technical results, namely to be fitted to independent front suspension (also known as ‘IFS’) and to isolate the vibrations and strains caused by the vertical movement of the wheels as opposed to the lateral movement operated by the steering. When requested at the hearing to indicate precisely the paragraphs of the documents relied upon in the contested decision in support of the findings of the Board of Appeal that steering or power steering was designed to be compatible with independent front suspension, OHIM stated that it was unable to refer to a specific document, and referred generally to the series of documents appended to the examiner’s letter of 13 August 2004.

39. Accordingly, it is not possible to identify, from among the documents relied upon by OHIM, those which show that there is a technical link between the goods covered and independent front suspension, in the sense that those goods are designed to be compatible with such suspension. Consequently, the accuracy of that fact has not been established for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 35 above.

40. It must be concluded, therefore, that the documents on which the Board of Appeal based the contested decision do not prove, per se, that the relevant public, as defined in paragraph 31 above, would perceive the sign IFS as descriptive of one of the characteristics of the goods covered and that, in consequence, registration of the trade mark applied for would be contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.

42. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the plea relied on by the applicant, alleging infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, is well founded and that the contested decision falls to be annulled."

Lees het arrest hier.