La Commissione di ricorso dell’EUIPO (di seguito solo: la Commissione) ha dato torto alla società italiana, produttrice dei notissimi stivali da neve Moon Boot, che pretendeva di proteggerli come marchio di forma. Si tratta della decisione 18 maggio 2020 nel proc. R 1093/2019-1, Tecnica Group SPA contro Zeitneu GmBH, (leggibile nel database EUIPO https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#basic/*///number/1093%2F2019-1 )
Nel 2011 veniva depositata domanda di marchio tridimensionale del noto stivale (vedi foto sopra) e la domanda veniva accolta con registrazione nell’anno successivo. Nel 2017 ne veniva però richiesto da società svizzera l’annullamento per mancanza di distintività; nel 2019 veniva accolta l’istanza dichiarandosi la nullità del marchio per i motivi indicati al § 6.
La Commissione precisa che la normativa di riferimento è costituita dal reg. 2017/1001, § 11.
Al § 26 la Commissione ricorda la giurisprudenza a cui intende attenersi in materia di marchi tridimensionali.
Particolarmente importanti sono gli ultimi tre trattini che qui riporto
<< – However, the perception of the average consumer is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the products it designates. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape in the absence of any graphic or textual element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark (20/10/2011, C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P, Botella esmerilada II, EU:C:2011:680, § 46; – Only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR (20/10/2011, C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P, Botella esmerilada II, EU:C:2011:680, § 47); – Therefore, where a three-dimensional mark consists of the shape of the product in respect of which registration is sought, the mere fact that that shape is a ‘variant’ of a common shape of that type of product is not sufficient to establish that the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. It must always be determined whether such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention (see, to that effect, judgment of 07/10/2004, C-136/02 P, Torches, EU:C:2004:592, § 32)>>
Ne segue che <<the shape of the sign must diverge appreciably from the shape that is expected by the consumer – as stated above it must depart significantly from the norm or customs of the sector (19/09/2001, T-30/00, red-white squared washing tablet (fig.), EU:T:2001:223; 04/10/2007, C-144/06 P, Tabs (3D), EU:C:2007:577) – in other words, the shape must be so materially different from basic, common or expected shapes that it enables a consumer to identify the goods just by their appearance. The more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR >>, § 27
Dopo una disamina fattuale su altri prodotti concorrenti, la Commisisone affronta il profilo del consumatore d riferimento: è quello di tutta l’UE , non essendo legato a fattori linguistici, § 44. Inoltre si tratta del pubblico medio, dato che il marchio <<was registered in particular for footwear which are common goods for which the attentiveness of the relevant public is considered to be average, as their price is not exorbitant and they are not considered items that last a lifetime>>, ivi.
Poi rirpende quanto detto prima e cioè che the <<the perception of the relevant public is not necessarily the same in relation to a threedimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the goods themselves as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the goods it designates. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark>>, § 45
Le caratteristiche distintive dello stivale o meglio della sua forme, secondo il titolare, sono quelle indicate al § 47: molte però hanno valenza technica o funzionale, § 48.
Inoltre molte sono usate dai concorrenti § 50 e segg. e ciò spt. per il laccio esterno, § 51.
(si noti poi il profilo procedurale della utilizzabilità dei documenti presenti nei siti puntati da link indicati dalle parti: ed anche se autonomamente ivi reperiti dall’Ufficio, parrebbe: § 54)
In breve ci sono molti altri concorrenti che offrono prodotti analoghi (per cui non c’è stato il distanziametno dalle prassi commerciali di settore, sopra ricordato) nè c’è stata prova che si tratti di licenziatari del titolare o comunque di prodotti a lui riconducibili, § 55.
La forma sub iudice, del resto, è tipica del c.d. doposci, § 56.
Bisogna insomma capire se <<such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention>>, § 59
Per cui ciò che alla fine conta è vedere se <<the shape as a whole departs significantly from the norms and customs of the sector. Therefore, although it is relevant, it is not necessarily fatal that some (perhaps even, all) of the features of a shape are not unique to the mark at issue or unusual in the sector concerned. Equally, the presence of one or more features which are unique to the shape at issue, or at least unusual in the sector concerned, does not automatically mean that the shape as a whole departs significantly from the norms and customs of the sector. This may be a factor when, considered by itself, the unique or unusual feature(s) in question makes only a small contribution to the overall impression created by the shape>> § 61
Nel caso specifico la Commisione conclude che l’associazione, che può fare l’utente tra segno e titolare del marchio, essite ma non è univoca, § 63: infatti <<the design is a recognisable shape that is, and always has, subsisted in the fabric of the skiing industry>> § 65.
Nè serve allegare le molte imitazioni: queste, come la giurisprudenza insegna, provano semmai la mancanza di distintività, § 68 (punto teoricamente interessante e forse un pò frettolosamente trattato)
Del resto la forma ad <<L>> è tipica degli stivali nè hanno distintività le altre caratteristiche dello stivale (suola antiscivolo, rivestimenti per tener caldo, etc.), § 72. Anche i lacci esterni son diffusi nel mercato, § 74.
In sintesi, <<the constituent elements of the contested mark taken individually and the shape created taken as a whole will be perceived by the relevant consumers as possible — or even common — variants of the presentation and decoration of those goods. It is clear from the above that the contested mark is sufficiently similar to other common shapes which are, thus, likely to be used for the goods at issue>> § 75.
Decisione priva di importanti considerazioni in diritto ed interessante soprattutto per l’applicazione fattuale ad un prodotto che ebbe grandissimo successo commerciale in Italia.