Nella lite (amministrativa, per ora) tra l’allenatore (ex calciatore) Klinsmann (poi solo K.) e Panini spa (poi solo: P.), l’EUIPO in appello dà ragione al primo.
Si tratta della decisione della 4° commissione di appello 28.09.2020 , Klinsmann c. Panini spa, caso R 640/2020-4, leggibile tramite il link offerto in ipkat.com, post di N. Malovic del 12.10.
P. fa opposizione alla registrazione di marchio depositato da K.
Il marchio di K. è
P. oppone anteriorità costitituite da una serie di marchi italiani ed europei (v. § 3, p. 2-3). Si veda nella decisione linkata la loro rappresentazione grafica
Il primo grado amministrativo è favorevole a P., l’appello invece a K.
Per il Board di 2° grado i marchi a-b-c-edi P. non sono confondibili con quello di K. Quanto ai marchi d)-f), l’opposizione è respinta perchè non è stato provato l’uso , avendone K. fatta richiesta ex art. 47/2 reg. 2017/1001.
Ebbene, quanto ai marchi di P. indicati come a)-b)-c), l’Ufficio dice che non sono confondibili con quello di K., dato che quest’ultimo -in sostanza- non si capisce cosa rappresenti:
<< 31 Due to the black design no human traits are visible from the element inside the circle. It cannot be determined in the first place whether the black circular ele-ment on top is a ball at all and if so, whether or not it is a football. It cannot be determined either whether the upward stroke represents a leg or an arm. Having the leg above one’s body is certainly an unnatural movement for a human being, and would rather be expected from a gymnastic move, if at all. One possible interpretation is that the ball is held or thrown with the hand of the person. Then the scene would represent a movement in a handball game [!!!].
32 Three strokes go rather downwards. These are markedly thinner than the upward stroke. If the upward stroke represented a leg, one would wonder where the sec-ond leg is. One would wonder which of the three downward strokes is ‘the second leg’ (or the ‘second arm’) given that all three are almost as thick as the others. It is only with a very analytical view that one can find out which of the three points represents a hand and which one a shoed foot. One would also wonder where the thorax is. Unlike the earlier remark the younger sign does not offer any three-dimensional perspective. For example it cannot be determined whether what the opponent interprets as the human head is ‘behind’ or on the same level as what, according to the opponent, should be ‘the leg’. So the younger mark looks rather Spiderman-like >.
E ancora: < 41 However no clear concept can be attached to the contested sign. It cannot be said that it unambiguously represents a football player – a handball player, or even a human being at all. Any ‘concept’ to be derived from the younger sign would re-quire an analytical approach, a detailed comparison (side by side with the earlier mark, which is not the proper method) and/or a detailed knowledge about the var-ious movements or techniques possible to shoot a ball. In particular it cannot be said that the younger sign represents the so-called scissors shot. 42 As no clear concept can be attached to the younger sign, there is no conceptual similarity with the earlier marks.>.
Qui mi limito ad esprimere forti perplessità su tale giudizio. A chi ha un minimo di (passata …) pratica calcistica o anche solo di interesse per essa (elemento certamente presente nell’utente medio dei prodotti chiesti in registrazione), pare evidente che si tratti di rovesciata/sforbiciata calcistica. Il giudizio del Board risulta dunque incomprensibile.