Il Tribunale UE, T 56/20, 24.02.2021, Bezos Famuily Foudnation c. EUIPO-SNCF, porta altro materiale per la comprensione di come vada condotto il giudizio di contraffazione.
Diritto pertinent: reg. 2017/1001.
La fondazione aveva chiesto la registrazione di marchio denominativo VROOM in classe 9 per <<Computer software, namely a mobile application for providing information and learning and educational activities and games in the field of early child development and early childhood education’.>>
E’ fatta opposizione per anteriorità costituta da marchio denominativo POP & VROOM per classi 9 e 42.
La fase amminisrativa va male alla Fondazione.
le va male pure la fase giudiziale, davanti al Tribunale, che rigetta l’impugnaizone.
La sentenza contiene i soliti passaggi logico-giuridici per la conduzione del giudizio, che però è sempre utile ripassare.
V. spt. il § The likelihood of confusion , §§ 48 ss e l’eccezione della Fondazione di non essere concorrente dell’opponente al momento del deposito. Giustamente il T. ricorda che potrà esserlo in futuro: <Moreover, it should be borne in mind that once a mark has been registered its proprietor has the right to use it as he or she sees fit so that, for the purposes of assessing whether an application for registration falls within the ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, it is necessary to ascertain whether there is a likelihood of confusion in all the circumstances in which the marks at issue might be used (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 12 June 2008, O2 Holdings and O2 (UK), C‑533/06, EU:C:2008:339, paragraph 66). Thus, it should be noted that the factors which may vary over time and depend on the wishes of the proprietors of those marks are not suitable for the purposes of the prospective analysis of the likelihood of confusion (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 2007, T.I.M.E. ART v OHIM, C‑171/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:171, paragraph 59). It follows that the applicant’s claim that it was not, at the time when the action was brought, a competitor of SNCF Mobilités does not rule out those marks from, in the future, being used so as to create, on the part of the relevant public, a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision>, § 53.