Trib. UE 24.04.2024, T-157/23, Kneipp GmbH c. EUIPO-Patou:
<<Whether the earlier mark has a reputation and the burden of proof in relation to that reputation
…
19 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, in order to satisfy the requirement of reputation, a mark must be known to a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark. In examining that condition, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, in particular the market share held by the earlier mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it. There is, however, no requirement for that mark to be known by a given percentage of the relevant public or for its reputation to cover all the territory concerned, so long as that reputation exists in a substantial part of that territory (see judgment of 12 February 2015, Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM – Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO QM), T‑76/13, not published, EU:T:2015:94, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited).
20 However, the above list being merely illustrative, it cannot be required that proof of the reputation of a mark pertains to all those elements (see judgment of 26 June 2019, Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO – Play Hawkers (HAWKERS), T‑651/18, not published, EU:T:2019:444, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
21 Furthermore, an overall assessment of the evidence adduced by the proprietor of the earlier mark must be carried out in order to establish whether that mark has a reputation (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 May 2012, Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM, C‑100/11 P, EU:C:2012:285, paragraph 72). An accumulation of items of evidence may allow the necessary facts to be established, even though each of those items of evidence, taken individually, may be insufficient to constitute proof of the accuracy of those facts (see judgment of 26 June 2019, HAWKERS, T‑651/18, not published, EU:T:2019:444, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
22 Next, it should be noted that the reputation of an earlier mark must be established as at the filing date of the application for registration of the mark applied for (judgment of 5 October 2020, Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal), T‑51/19, not published, EU:T:2020:468, paragraph 112). Documents bearing a date after that date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date. It cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after that date may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date (see judgment of 16 October 2018, VF International v EUIPO – Virmani (ANOKHI), T‑548/17, not published, EU:T:2018:686, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited; see also, by analogy, order of 27 January 2004, La Mer Technology, C‑259/02, EU:C:2004:50, paragraph 31).
23 In the present case, the reputation of the earlier mark had to be established as at 29 November 2019, the date on which the application for registration of the mark applied for was filed. The Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 46 of the contested decision, that, as a whole, the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO demonstrated convincingly that the earlier mark enjoyed a strong reputation, at least in France, which constitutes a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, in respect of perfumery and fragrances in Class 3 for which, inter alia, the earlier mark was registered.
24 In particular, it should be noted that, in order to find that the reputation of the earlier mark had been established, the Board of Appeal relied on the evidence referred to in paragraph 6 of the contested decision, namely, a statement signed by a representative of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, various copies of licence agreements or agreements conferring rights in respect of a trade mark JOY between that party and third parties, images of products, several extracts from websites of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and third parties, a large number of articles and press cuttings, extracts from books, advertisements, numerous invoices and extracts from ‘tweets’.
25 In the first place, it is necessary to examine the applicant’s argument that the documents produced by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, the existence of which is not disputed, do not provide evidence of the reputation of the earlier mark in a significant part of the relevant territory in the absence, in particular, of information concerning the market share of the earlier mark.
26 In that regard, as a preliminary point, it is necessary to reject the applicant’s arguments suggesting that the evidence intended to prove the reputation of the earlier mark in Member States other than the French Republic is irrelevant. While it is true that the Board of Appeal found that the earlier mark had a reputation ‘at least in France’ and that that State constituted a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, that does not mean that the evidence relating to other Member States is irrelevant. On the contrary, the latter evidence further supports the Board of Appeal’s finding, by demonstrating in particular the geographical scope of the earlier mark’s reputation, and must therefore be taken into consideration.
27 First, it should be noted that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO produced (i) numerous online articles (exhibit 7) showing that the perfume Joy was voted, in 2000, ‘Scent of the Century’ by the UK FiFi Awards, which is described as ‘perfume’s ultimate accolade’, and (ii) a screenshot of the Fragrance Foundation’s website (exhibit 6), referring to the listing of the perfume Joy on the ‘Hall of Fame’ of that foundation in 1990. As noted by the Board of Appeal, those awards are prestigious awards, which involve both longstanding use of the earlier mark and recognition of that mark by the relevant public.
28 Second, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO produced various extracts from books, articles and press cuttings (exhibits 4, 5, 12 and Annex 2) showing, inter alia, the use of the earlier mark for perfumes and fragrances and attesting that a significant part of the relevant public, in particular in France, knew the perfume Joy. The numerous extracts from articles, the date and place of publication of which can for the most part be identified, relate in particular to the years 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 and were published in several Member States, namely, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Italy, Portugal and, mainly, France, in fashion and beauty magazines of national or international importance, such as Elle, Grazia, Gala or Vogue. Several articles, dated from 2015 to 2017, describe the perfume Joy as the ‘second best-selling perfume of all time’, ‘one of the most popular and successful fragrances in the world’, ‘a strong rival to the number one best-selling fragrance of all time’. Lastly, several books on perfumery deal with the perfume Joy, listing it as one of ‘the five greatest perfumes in the world’, or as one of the ‘111 perfumes you must smell before you die’ or describing it as ‘one of the greatest floral perfumes ever created’. Finally, a selection of ‘tweets’ dated from the period between 2013 and 2015 (exhibit 14) demonstrates the social media presence of the earlier mark.
29 Third, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO produced 27 invoices (exhibit 11) corresponding to advertising campaigns, which it carried out in 2013, 2014 and 2018, not only in the press, but also on television at a significant cost, in order to promote the earlier mark.
30 Fourth, the abovementioned factors are supported by a large number of invoices (exhibit 16) relating to sales involving several thousand products covered by the earlier mark, in an amount of tens of thousands of euro, to various distributors in several Member States, namely, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and Romania, for the years 2013 to 2018.
31 In the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 20 and 21 above, it follows from the foregoing that, assessed as a whole, that evidence establishes that the earlier mark has a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, in particular in France, as regards perfumery and fragrances in Class 3.
32 The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO made significant efforts and investments in order to promote the earlier mark among the general public and in particular among the French general public. Those efforts took the form of significant advertising campaigns, a media presence in newspapers and magazines aimed at the general public and widely distributed within the European Union. Furthermore, the sales invoices submitted which related mainly to sales of perfumes and ‘eaux de parfums’ support the abovementioned factors demonstrating, inter alia, the wide geographical coverage of the earlier mark on that territory and a constant effort on the part of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to maintain its market share, at least until 2018.
33 Those documents, as well as the prestigious awards won by the perfume Joy, make it possible to establish that the earlier mark is widely known by the general public, in relation to the goods which it designates, in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, even though those awards date back several years and sales figures fell between 2013 and 2018. In the latter regard, it should be noted that, in any event, the earlier mark enjoyed a high degree of reputation in the past, which, even if it were to be assumed that it may have diminished over the years, still survived at the date of filing the application for registration of the mark applied for in 2019; accordingly, a certain ‘surviving’ reputation remained at that date (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2014, Simca Europe v OHIM – PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca), T‑327/12, EU:T:2014:240, paragraphs 46, 49 and 52).
34 Thus, the applicant’s argument that a significant part of the relevant public are teenagers who were not born when the perfume Joy won those awards and that adults aged 18 to 29 were not aware of the historical events, such as the awards and mentions in books at the relevant time, is unfounded. As EUIPO correctly submits, those parts of the relevant public may become aware of the long-lasting reputation of the earlier mark, without necessarily being the witnesses of all the awards and public praise achieved by the earlier mark in the past, and may come into contact with that mark, by way of example, through digital advertising, billboards or the printed press. Moreover, the EU judicature has already held that it cannot be ruled out that a ‘historical’ mark may retain a certain ‘surviving’ reputation, including where that mark is no longer used (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2014, Simca, T‑327/12, EU:T:2014:240, paragraphs 46, 49 and 52).
35 Furthermore, such reasoning also applies to the applicant’s argument that a significant part of the relevant public does not frequent luxury retail outlets, with the result that it cannot know the perfume Joy which is sold only by selected and prominent luxury retailers. First, the public concerned acquires and retains knowledge of a mark in several ways, in particular by visiting in person retail outlets where the corresponding products are sold, but also by other means such as those described in paragraph 34 above. Second, even consumers in the general public who cannot afford to purchase luxury branded goods are often exposed to them and are familiar with them (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 October 2022, Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO – Wisniewski (Representation of a chequerboard pattern II), T‑275/21, not published, EU:T:2022:654, paragraph 47).
36 Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant claims, the fact that the market share held by the earlier mark has not been established by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO does not necessarily mean that the reputation of the earlier mark has not been established. First, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraphs 19 and 20 above, the list of factors to be taken into account in order to assess the reputation of an earlier mark is indicative and not mandatory, as all the relevant evidence in the case must be taken into account and, second, the detailed and verifiable evidence produced by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO is sufficient in itself to establish conclusively the reputation of the earlier mark for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 (see judgment of 14 September 2022, Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO – Save the Duck (ITINERANT), T‑417/21, not published, EU:T:2022:561, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited).
37 In the second place, the applicant also relies on the fact that the Board of Appeal assumed that the earlier mark had a reputation and wrongly stated that it was for the applicant to prove a drastic loss of reputation of the earlier mark between 2018 and 29 November 2019, the filing date of the mark applied for.
38 As recalled in the case-law cited in paragraph 22 above, it cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after the filing date of the application for registration of the mark at issue may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. The same reasoning applies to the loss of such a reputation, which is also, in general, lost gradually. The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date.
39 Thus, evidence which predates the filing date of the application for registration of the contested mark cannot be deprived of probative value on the sole ground that it bears a date which predates that filing date by five years (judgment of 5 October 2020, apiheal, T‑51/19, not published, EU:T:2020:468, paragraph 112).
40 It is also apparent from the case-law that, as regards the burden of proof in relation to reputation, it is borne by the proprietor of the earlier mark (see judgment of 5 October 2022, Puma v EUIPO – CMS (CMS Italy), T‑711/20, not published, EU:T:2022:604, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited).
41 In the present case, in paragraph 34 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, after recalling that the application for registration had been filed on 29 November 2019, emphasised that most of the evidence submitted related to the period between 2013 and 2017 and that some of that evidence dated back to 1990, 2000 or 2006; however, it noted that the evidence in fact contained indications concerning the continuous efforts of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to maintain its market share in 2018, before adding that ‘the loss of reputation rarely happens as a single occurrence but is rather a continuing process over a long period of time, as the reputation is usually built up over a period of years and cannot simply be switched on and off’ and that ‘in addition, such drastic loss of reputation for a short period of time would be up to the applicant to prove’.
42 Thus, contrary to what the applicant claims, that assessment does not constitute a reversal of the burden of proof and is consistent with the case-law cited in paragraphs 38 to 40 above. In the absence of concrete evidence showing that the reputation progressively acquired by the earlier mark over many years suddenly disappeared during the last year under examination, the Board of Appeal was entitled to conclude that the earlier mark still had a reputation on 29 November 2019, the relevant date (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 January 2004, Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission, C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P, EU:C:2004:6, paragraph 79).
43 Therefore, the first complaint of the single plea in law must be rejected>>.