Il Tribunale UE con sentenza 19.10.2022 , T-275/21, Luis Vuitton c. EUIPO, ha riconfermato la nullità del marchio del noto tessuto (si v. il mio post 24 luglio 20 sulla prima sentenza).
Era stato già dichiarato privo di distintività ab origine ma rimandato all’Ufficio per esaminare la eventuale distintività sopravvenuta.
Ma l’ufficio l’ha negata e così pure il Tribunale.
Sentenza importante non tanto per il gidizio finale nel caso specifico quanto per l’iter motivatorio: sarà il leading case per la determinazione del secondary meaning (ma anche per quella ab origine) nei marchi europei.
Fattori da considerare: <<23 In order to determine whether a mark has acquired distinctive character, account must be taken, inter alia, of the market share held by the mark, how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing the use of the mark has been, the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark, the proportion of the relevant class of persons who, because of the mark, identify the product as originating from a particular undertaking, statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations as well as opinion polls (see judgment of 21 April 2015, Louis Vuitton Malletier v OHIM – Nanu-Nana (Representation of a grey chequerboard pattern), T‑360/12, not published, EU:T:2015:214, paragraph 90 and the case-law cited).>>
da provare in tutti gli stati ue , § 28 (si badi: in tutti)
la parte più interessante è quando poi esmina i singoli mezzi di prova in casau.
Tra i molti ricordo per la suasemrep poco cjhiartr rilevanza quella della presenza in rete
<<84 By contrast, the mere fact that a website on which the mark at issue was promoted is accessible in certain Member States is not sufficient to demonstrate that a significant part of the relevant public in those Member States has been exposed to that mark. The mere existence of a website is not capable of establishing the intensity of use of a trade mark or of the relevant public’s exposure to that mark (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 19 November 2014, Out of the blue v OHIM – Dubois and Another (FUNNY BANDS), T‑344/13, not published, EU:T:2014:974, paragraph 29).
(…) 90 In that regard, it is important to note that whilst, in principle, the fact that a search engine or social network algorithm associates the name of the contested mark and the goods made by the proprietor of that mark may be a relevant indicator for the purposes of assessing distinctive character acquired through use of the contested mark (see paragraph 83 above), it remains the case that the Board of Appeal rightly found that, given the small percentages of data concerning the relevant Bulgarian and Slovakian public, and given the low number of repetitions of the keywords in question, that evidence did not demonstrate an exposure of a significant part of that public to the contested mark.
967 Lastly, as regards the sites where the top-level domain is general, namely ‘www.upscalehype.com’, ‘www.coolspotters.com’, ‘www.bloguez.com’, ‘www.bagbliss.com’ and ‘www.styleestate.com’, suffice it to state that the applicant has not submitted any substantiated evidence demonstrating that a part of the relevant public in the Member States concerned consulted them. Therefore, the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised for having found that they did not primarily target the Member States concerned (see paragraph 82 above)>>.