nozione di contraffazione: c) marchio che gode di rinomanza

“LARA CROFT” vs “LoraCraft”: un caso di tutela della rinomanza extramerceologica

Marcel Pemsel su IPKat segnala Opposition Division EUIPO Nо B 3 180 999 del 30.11.2023.

L’ufficio esclude la confondibilità ordinaria ex art. 8.1, EUTMR per carenza di affinità merceologica (corde e packaging per imballaggio vs. ceramiche etc.)

Riconosce però la tutela allargata per ingiustificato vantaggio dalla notorietà altrui ex art. 8,.5 EUTMR

<<It has to be recalled that the contested goods have a link to the earlier reputed goods and services, as explained in section c) above. Furthermore, the earlier mark enjoys a high reputation in the European Union in connection with video games. Consequently, and according to case-law, earlier marks with a strong reputation will be recognised in almost any context, particularly as a result of their above-average quality, which reflects a positive message, influencing the choice of the consumers as regards goods or services of other producers/providers.

Furthermore, it is important to underline that the earlier trade mark is inherently distinctive in relation to the goods and services they are registered for. This fact makes it even more likely that the applicant will attempt to benefit from the value of the opponent’s sign since such a distinctive trade mark as “Lara Croft” will be recognised in almost any context. The mere fact that the applicant changed the position of two letters will in no way impede such a recognition, as the structure of the contested sign – female Christian name and last name – is still identical to the earlier right.

An unfair advantage occurs when a third party exploits the reputation of the earlier mark to the benefit of its own marketing efforts. In practice, the applicant ‘hooks onto’ the renowned mark and uses it as a vehicle to encourage consumer interest in its own products. The advantage for the applicant is a substantial saving on investment in promotion and publicity for its own mark, since it benefits from that which has made the earlier mark famous. This is unfair because it is done in a parasitic way (08/02/2002, R 472/2001 1, BIBA/ BIBA).

Furthermore, in view of the earlier trade mark special attractiveness, it may be exploited even outside its natural market sector, by merchandising (as demonstrated by the opponent). Hence, as the earlier mark has a high reputation and the commercial and as especially the merchandising context in which the goods are promoted are very close, the Opposition Division can accept the opponent’s claim that consumers of goods in Class 9 and in Class 22 make a connection between the applicant’s goods and the reputed mark Lara Croft used by the opponent.

The opponent has invested large sums of money and effort in creating a certain brand image associated with its trade mark, by creating a fictious character which attracts the admiration of the public, inciting them to be a close as possible to this character (for instance women dressed like Lara Croft in fan events), and one way of doing this is by buying merchandising goods, bearing the name Lara Croft.

This image associated with a trade mark confers on it an – often significant – economic value, which is independent of that of the goods for which it is registered. Consequently, Article 8(5) EUTMR aims at protecting this advertising function and the investment made in creating a certain brand image by granting protection to reputed trade mark, irrespective of the similarity of the goods or services or of a likelihood of confusion, provided it can be demonstrated that use of the contested application without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark.

The notion of taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute covers cases where the applicant benefits from the attractiveness of the earlier right by using for its services a sign that is similar (or identical) to one widely known in the market and, therefore, misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value, or exploiting its reputation, image and prestige. This may lead to unacceptable situations of commercial parasitism, where the applicant is allowed to take a ‘free ride’ on the investment of the opponent in promoting and building up goodwill for its mark, as it may stimulate sales of its products to an extent that is disproportionately high for the size of its promotional investment. In its judgement of 18/06/2009, C 487/07, L’Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 49, the Court indicated that unfair advantage exists where there is a transfer of the image of the mark, or of the characteristics that it projects, to the goods identified by the identical or similar sign. By riding on the coat-tails of the reputed mark, the applicant benefits from the power of attraction, reputation and prestige of the reputed mark. The applicant also exploits, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the earlier mark in order to create and maintain the image of that mark.

The use of the mark applied for in connection with the abovementioned goods will almost certainly draw the relevant consumer’s attention to the opponent’s highly similar and very well-known mark. The contested mark will become associated with the aura of fame that surrounds the Lara Croft brand. Many consumers are very likely to think that there is a direct connection between the goods of the applicant, and the famous Lara Croft character, as the sings are made up of identical letters, or might not even notice the difference.

Article 8(5) EUTMR exists to prevent this type of situation, where one mark takes unfair advantage of its distinctive character and repute. The applicant could take unfair advantage of the fact that the public knows the trade mark Lara Croft so well, in order to introduce its own similar trade mark without incurring any great risk and the cost of introducing a totally unknown trade mark to the market.

On the basis of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the contested trade mark will take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

The opponent also argues that use of the contested trade mark would be detrimental to the repute of the earlier trade mark.

As seen above, the existence of a risk of injury is an essential condition for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply. The risk of injury may be of three different types. For an opposition to be well founded in this respect it is sufficient if only one of these types is found to exist. In the present case, as seen above, the Opposition Division has already concluded that the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark. It follows that there is no need to examine whether other types also apply>>.

Decisione esatta.

La confondibilità dei marchi nel caso Jagermeister

Il secondo non è vero che sia dissimilar dal primo: è similar, anche se solo in parte.

Si noti l’evidente tentatico del secondo di porre una netta differenza nel nome, la cui rilevanza è duplicemente notevole all’interno di ciascun marchio: sia perchè il nome prevale sul disegno nella percezione cnsumeristica (lo stesso BoA lo ricorda) sia perchè è scritto assai ingrande nel caso specifico.

Quindi il rigetto dell’opposizione era ingiustificato e la procedura torna alla Opposition Division per vedere se ciò basta per un giudizio di confondibilità (essenzialmente data la rinomanza dell’anteriorità: <<It must be borne in mind, in particular, that, depending on the degree of recognition of the earlier trade mark, even a low degree of similarity between the signs may be sufficientfor the assumption of a link within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR>>, § 25)

Così il 1 Board of appeal dell’ EUipo 20 giuigno 2023In Case R 1952/2022-1Mast-Jägermeister SE c. Tin Kakuszi (ungheria) (v pag. web euipo e accouint del fascicolo nel database ove trovi trad. automat. dall’ioriginale tedesco)

<<18. The earlier figurative mark likewise consists of a rectangular shape which resembles a-bottle label. On a dark-green background there is a white rectangle bordered by a green line followed by a white line. There is a horizontal banderolein orange in the middle of the Zei chens, which contains the text ‘Jägermeister’ in black stylised letters. Underneath it is the word element ‘SELECTED 56 BOTANICALS’ in considerably smaller lettering together with further details, which are barely legible on account of their even smaller font. Above the orange stripred is a white and golden green circle which is decorated with golden-coloured leaves on its underside. The stylised head of a stag with antlers in a jet-circle is depicted in the green circle. Above and framed by the anchor is a circle in a lighter green with a white Latin cross. For the above reasons, the most distinctive element of the earlier sign is the word element ‘Jägermeister’. Nevertheless, the brown targeted will not-neglect the graphic design as a whole and in particular the representation of a stag’s head on a green circle with a cross and the green and orange colour schema in the overall impression of the earlier trade mark.
19. Despite the differences that exist, in particular the differences in the most distinctive word components ‘ST. Joseph’ and ‘Jägermeister’ and in terms of the figurative elements (head of a man in contrast to the head of a deer), the opposing signs have a low degree of visual similarity, as theirgraphic arrangement is very similar overall. The signs are identical in terms of their colour schema (green, white, gold and orange/red), their basic rectangular shape, their construction and their essential graphic elements and their arrangement to one another (circular green element with a portraitsimilar strip above an orange-coloured/red banderole).
20. Both the earlier sign and the central left-hand part of the sign applied for consist of an inner (dark) white rectangle which is firstly bordered by a green, then a dark-green white line and then a dark green line. Both signs contain a red or orange band positioned in the centre with a black lettering above which a dark-and-white and golden green circle with a gold floral decoration is attached. In the dark green circle, there is in each case a stylised front view of a head (by a man in the contested sign and a stag in the earlier sign), which is surrounded by a jet circle in each case.
21. The signs under comparison therefore have a low degree of visual similarity.
22. The signs are aurally dissimilar, as the most distinctive word elements ‘ST. Joseph’ of the contested sign and ‘Jägermeister’ of the earlier sign un are pronounced differently-depending onthe different relevant languages.
23. The signs are conceptually dissimilar. Some of the consumers will understand the word element ‘ST. Joseph’ of the contested sign as a reference to the naked Josef. The word-element ‘Jägermeister’ of the earlier sign as a whole has no meaning. Nevertheless, the German-speaking consumer in any case immediately recognises therein thefact that the terms ‘Jäger’ and ‘Meister’ are combined, and therefore a meaning that differs from ‘ST. Joseph’. Furthermore, for all the consumers targeted, the signs differ in the meaning of the respective figurative elements, namely the depiction of a head of a man in the application, in contrast to the depiction of a head of a deer in the earlier trade mark.
24. Overall, the signs under comparison therefore have a low degree of similarity.
25. The Opposition Division considered the signs to be dissimilar and therefore, from their point of view, did not examine the further requirements ofthe asserted opposition. However, since, as stated above, the signs have a low degree of visual similarity, this must be remedied. It must be borne in mind, in particular, that, depending on the degree of recognition of the earlier trade mark, even a low degree of similarity between the signs may be sufficientfor the assumption of a link within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR (-16/01/2018, 398/16, COFFEE ROCKS (fig.)/STARBUCKS COFFEE (fig.) et al., EU:T:2018:4, § 78)>>.

Momento e modo cui valutare il marchio violato nel giudizio di contraffazione

Cass. sez. I n° 21.738 del 20.07.2023, rel. Falabella (con passaggi non limpidissimi…):

1) il giudizio sulla esistenza o meno della rinomanza va dato alla data del deposito (o di uso, se marchio di fatto) del secondo marchio. Così parrebbe leggendo : <<l’odierna ricorrente ha agito in giudizio per sentir dichiarare la nullità dei marchi di (Omissis) e l’accertamento della contraffazione posta in essere, ai propri danni, attraverso di essi. Sotto il primo profilo i Giudici del merito dovevano evidentemente verificare se alla registrazione dei marchi si frapponesse l’impedimento di cui all’art. 12, lett. e): a tal fine l’indagine circa la rinomanza dei segni in questione andava condotta avendo riguardo all’epoca del deposito del primo dei marchi “(Omissis)” (anno 1999, come è pacifico), non ad epoca successiva. Simile (ma non esattamente coincidente) conclusione si impone in relazione alla sola domanda relativa all’accertamento dell’illecito contraffattivo. Come insegna la Corte di giustizia, il diritto del titolare alla tutela del suo marchio contro le lesioni di quest’ultimo non sarebbe né effettivo né efficace se non permettesse di prendere in considerazione la percezione del pubblico interessato nel momento in cui si è iniziato l’uso del segno che lede il suddetto marchio: quindi, per determinare la portata della tutela di un marchio regolarmente acquisito in funzione della sua capacità distintiva, il giudice deve prendere in considerazione la percezione del pubblico interessato nel momento in cui il segno, il cui uso lede il suddetto marchio, ha iniziato ad essere oggetto di utilizzazione (Corte giust. CE 27 aprile 2006, C-145/05, Levi Strauss & Co., 17 e 20, pure citata da parte ricorrente)>>.

Affermazione scontata.

2) la contraffazione va accertata rispetto al marchio violato così come depositato, non così come concretamente usato. Così parrebbe da <<è senz’altro vero che il giudizio quanto al rischio confusorio determinato dalla somiglianza dei marchi, siccome impiegati per prodotti o servizi identici o affini, può riguardare segni che presentino una differente caratterizzazione (per essere l’uno denominativo e l’altro al contempo denominativo e figurativo: per una ipotesi siffatta cfr. ad es. Cass. 18 giugno 2018, n. 15927). E’ altrettanto vero, però, che, ove si tratti di accertare la nullità della registrazione ex art. 12, comma 1, lett. b), o l’uso illecito del segno che sia simile ad altro marchio precedentemente registrato, a norma dell’art. 20 comma 1, lett. b), occorre guardare a tale titolo di privativa, e cioè al segno oggetto di deposito e registrazione, non al modo con cui esso venga utilizzato dall’avente diritto (sull’irrilevanza delle modalità concrete di applicazione dei marchi denominativi ai prodotti, dovendo la valutazione quanto all’impedimento alla registrazione del marchio effettuarsi sulla base dei segni quali registrati o richiesti: Trib. UE 29 febbraio 2012, T-525/10, Azienda Agricola Colsaliz, 37; Trib. UE 9 giugno 2010, T-138/09, Muñoz Arraiza, 50)>>.

Pure affermazione scontata: la diversità rileva solo al fine di eventuale decadenza per non uso

Tutela extramerceologica di marchio rinomato concessa solo in parte

Trib. UE 24 maggio 2023, T-509/22, Bimbo SA v. Euipo-Bottari euripe srl, decide in modo corretto domanda di tutela della rinomanza (art. 8.5 reg. UE 2017/1001)

marchio chiesto in registratozione ma contestato dall’opponente

L’anteriorità era data da BIMBO (marchio denominativo assai rinomato in Spagna per pane e prodotti relativi) rispetto al marchio de quo , riferito per lo più a prodotti relativi alle biciclette.

Giustamente il Trib. conferma la decisione amministrativa di rigetto della domanda di tutela della rinomanza: non c’è approfittamento indebito da parte dell’uno nè dilution a carico dell’altro.

E’ però assai dubbio che ci sia per quelle poche classi di prodotti per cui l’Ufficio ha concesso la tutela (§ 7: soprattutto per le cl. 3 e 28)

class 3: ‘Detergents; Soap; Grease-removing preparations’;
Class 21: ‘Drinking bottles; Drinking bottles for sports’;
Class 28: ‘Scooters [toys]; Tricycles for infants [toys]; scooters for kids; Gloves for games’.

Marcel Pemsel su Ipkat offre un utile suggerimento operativo per favorire il riconoscimenot della tutela allargata: <<In order to show that the reputation of a trade mark goes beyond the public targeted by the goods or services for which the trade mark is famous, evidence on collaboration with companies from different sectors can be useful. Also, other efforts to extend the brand beyond the sector for which it enjoys a reputation can show that consumers in other sectors are familiar with it, such as merchandising producs or sponsorships>>.

Giusto: bravo Marcel!

Un caso di marchio nullo perchè pregiudizievole della rinomanza (o distintività) di marchio rinomato anteriore

I casi in oggetto non sono frequenti ma ora ce ne è uno deciso dal board of appeal del’EUIPO: marchio grafico a forma di coniglietto per sex toys che riproduce quasi pedissequamente prevcedetne marchio rinomato usato per prodotti per l’infanzia.

Si tratta del 4° board of appeal 10.01.2023, case R 442/2022-4, Mercis BR c. Bunnyjuice, Inc (qui la pag. dell’ufficio ed invece qui il link diretto al file word)

Intgeressa soprattutto:

i) a fini pratici, le prove documentali (corpose) prodotte dall’opponente a fondamento della allegazione di reputazione/rinomanza, trattata ai §§ 41 ss (tra cui pure un sondaggio di mercato, § 53)

ii) il passaggio sul detriment:

<< (iv) Use which would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark

The types of injury against which Article 8(5) EUTMR ensures protection for the benefit of trade marks with a reputation are, first, detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, secondly, detriment to the repute of that mark and, thirdly, unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark which ultimately addresses the question of whether there is a positive or a negative image transfer to or from the contested sign. Just one of those three types of injury suffices for that provision to apply (27/11/2008, C-252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 27, 28).
Detriment to the repute of the earlier mark under Article 8(5) EUTMRconcerns harming the earlier mark by way of detriment to its repute. Detriment to repute relates to situations where use of the contested mark without due cause is likely to devalue the image or the prestige that a mark with reputation has acquired among the public.
The reputation of the earlier trade mark may be tainted or debased in this way, either when it is reproduced in an obscene, degrading or inappropriate context, or in a context that is not inherently unpleasant but that proves to be incompatible with a particular image the earlier trade mark has acquired in the eyes of the public due to the promotional efforts of its owner. The likelihood of such detriment may arise in particular from the fact that the goods or services offered by the third party possess a characteristic or a quality that is liable to have a negative impact on the image of the mark (18/06/2009, C‑487/07, L’Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
As a consequence of the link established, the Board finds that, as correctly argued by the opponent, use of the contested mark would be detrimental to the repute of the earlier mark. Indeed, it is likely that use of the contested mark for the goods in Class 10 concerned would devalue the image that the earlier mark has acquired amongst the public.

As the evidence submitted by the opponent shows, the earlier mark appeals to children, instilling a sense of safety. The earlier mark stands for innocence, no aggression, no controversy and respect for the world of children encouraging them to develop and value their own identity and to express themselves in their own way allowing scope for their own imagination. The goods covered by the contested mark obviously possess characteristics which are incompatible with this image and is liable to have a negative impact on it>>.

(notizia e link da Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot in IPKat in data odierna)

Scarsissima affinità merceologica ma notevole vicinanza tra segni: la domanda di marchio è respinta per l’anteriorità di un segno rinomato

sul caso DEVICE OF A RABBIT WITH OVAL SHAPED EARS.

L’appello amminsitrativo EUIPO rigetta la domanda di registrazione con decisione 10 gennaio 2023 , case R 442/2022-4, Mercis BV c. Bunnyjuice, Inc. (ove trovi il link al file word della decisione, che per comodità ripeto qui ).

Paragone tra i segni al § 39/40

Rinomanza riconosciuta: <54 In sum, it has been proven that the earlier mark representing the Nijntje character had at the date of application of the contested mark a very strong reputation at least in the Netherlands, which suffices to prove a reputation in the Benelux (see paragraph 42 above) for, amongst others, books in Class 16, children books in particular, clothing in Class 25, children’s clothing in particular, and games and playthings in Class 28>.

Segue analisi dei rimanenti requisiti ex lege (“uso senza giusto motivo del marchio depositato possa trarre indebito vantaggio dal carattere distintivo o dalla notorietà del marchio anteriore o recare pregiudizio agli stessi”)

Un caso da manuale di tutela della rinomanza: il marchio denominativo GOOGLE CAR

Trib. UE 01.02.2023, T-569/21, Zoubier Harbaoui c. EUIPO-Google LLC decide la lite.

Naturalmente applica la tutela della rinomanza (art. 8.5 reg. 2017/1001) : se non lo fa con Google , uno dei brand più famosi al mondo, non si sa quando mai possa applicarla!

Si noti che è stato (giustamente) ritenuto irrilevante il fatto che Google :

i) non lo avesse registrato per autoveicoli ma per prodotti-servizi diverse; e che

ii) commercializzasse le proprie auto con altro marchio (WAYMO : v. https://waymo.com/).

Riporto solo il passo sull’indebito vantaggio/unfair advantage: << The risk of unfair advantage covers the situation in which the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with the reputation (see judgment of 26 September 2018, PUMA, T‑62/16, EU:T:2018:604, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). In order to determine whether the use of the later mark takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, it is necessary to undertake a global assessment, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, which include the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation and the degree of distinctive character of the mark, the degree of similarity between the marks at issue and the nature and degree of proximity of the goods or services concerned. As regards the strength of the reputation and the degree of distinctive character of the earlier mark, it follows from the case-law that the stronger that mark’s distinctive character and reputation are, the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it (judgment of 18 June 2009, L’Oréal and Others, C‑487/07, EU:C:2009:378, paragraph 44; see also judgment of 28 May 2020, Galletas Gullón v EUIPO – Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH), T‑677/18, not published, EU:T:2020:229, paragraph 121). The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later mark, the greater the likelihood that the current or future use of the later mark is taking unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark (judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 67)>>.

Interessante è il passaggio processuale relativo al fatto che il giudizio dell’Ufficio non debba analiticamente cpnsiderere tutti i prodotti indicati nelle classi scelte ma possa raggrupparli, §§ 29-30

Affinità merceologica (assente) tra abbigliamento e gioelleria + requisiti per la tutela extramerceologia della rinomanza: il Tribunale UE sul caso Rolex

Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-726/21, Rolex SA cv. EUIPO-PWT A/S , sull’oggetto.

Di fronte a segni assai simili, la domanda di Rolex è stata ugualmente rigettata per assenza dell’affinità merceologica.

Questo quanto alla tutela ordinaria.

Quanto a quella straordinaria da rinomanza (tutto da vedere se sia esatto qualificarla <extra ordinem>), è anche essa pure rigettata : per carenza dei requisi posti dallrt. 12.1.e) cpi, anzi polsti dall’art. 8.5 reg. 207/2009.

In sostanza Rolex si è mantenuta nel vago anzichè addurre circostanze precise sul pregiudizio e/o sull’indebito vantaggio, previsti in dette disposizioni (basta quindi la prova di uno solo dei tre requisiti posti in alternativa -se si può dire così, dato che non sono due).

Punto importante. Stante la notorietà di Rolex, si potrebbe essere sorpresi, ma forse il T. ha visto giusto: non esiste in diritto il danno in re ipsa.

Gli operatori prendano nota.

Insufficiente affinità merceologica tra abbigliamento ed orologi di lusso: non raggiuntra la prova dell’abuso di notorietà o del danno ad essa

Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-726/21, Rolex SA c. EUIPO-PWT A/S nell’opposizione di Rolex (alta orologeria) contro marchio simile per abbigliamento.

<< it has already been held that jewellery and watches, even precious stones, one the one hand, and items of clothing, on the other, could not be regarded as similar (see, to that effect, judgments of 24 March 2010, 2nine v OHIM – Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie), T‑364/08, not published, EU:T:2010:115, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited, and of 10 October 2018, Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO – A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882), T‑374/17, not published, EU:T:2018:669, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). (…)

In addition, it must be pointed out that the fact that the goods at issue may be sold in the same commercial establishments, such as department stores, is not particularly significant, since very different kinds of goods may be found in such shops, without consumers automatically believing that they have the same origin (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 July 2015, BH Stores v OHIM – Alex Toys (ALEX), T‑657/13, EU:T:2015:449, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited).>>, §§ 25 E 31.

Sullo sfruttamento della e/o sul danno alla rinomanza:

<< 42 In order to benefit from the protection introduced by the provisions of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the proprietor of the earlier mark must, first of all, adduce proof, either that the use of the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, or that it would be detrimental to that distinctive character or that repute (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 37).

43 In that regard, although the proprietor of the earlier trade mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present injury to its mark for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, it must, however, prove that there is a serious risk that such an injury will occur in the future (judgment of 4 March 2020, Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO, C‑155/18 P to C‑158/18 P, EU:C:2020:151, paragraph 75; see also, by analogy, judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 38).

44 The Board of Appeal noted that, in order to demonstrate the existence of one of the types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the applicant had not submitted observations to it, but that, before the Opposition Division, it had argued that the intervener could take unfair advantage of the degree of recognition of the earlier composite mark on account of the fact that the signs at issue were almost identical and the immense reputation acquired by the earlier marks, which allegedly convey images of prestige, luxury and an active lifestyle. It found that, by those arguments, the applicant had in fact merely referred to the wording of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, without submitting any coherent arguments as to why one of such injuries would occur. The Board of Appeal inferred from this that no injury referred to in that provision was established>>.

Un caso di rigetto di domanda del titolare di marchio rinomato verso prodotti merceologicamente lontani dai propri

Qualche volta anche ai titolari di marchi assai rinomati non va bene: provbabilmente si può dire che ciò capita quando la rinomanza è molto settoriale.

E’ questo il caso di Trib. Ue T-4/22 del 21.12.2022, Puma SE v. EUIPO + DN solutions co ltd.

Nonostante i segnia parafone fossero quasi identici (

) e nonostante il secondo fosse certamente rinomato, tuttavia l’opposizione è rigettata: troppa lontananza merceologica (Lathes; CNC (computer numerical control) lathes; machining centers; turning center; electric discharge machine’ versus abbigliamento)!