Tag: mancanza di distintività

Sulla distintività del marchio tridimensionale degli stivali da neve Moon Boot arriva la decisione del Tribunale UE

Avevo dato conto  nel mio post 04.07.2020 della decisione amministrativa presso EUIPO del 2020, che aeva rigettato la domanda di registazione del marchio costituito dalla forma dei notissimi stivali da neve/dopo sci Moon Boot.

Ora è stato deciso il primo grado della fase giurisdizionale ed  in senso ancora una volta sfavorevole alla società TEcnica, confermando dunque la nullità del marchio per carenza di distintività.

Si tratta di Trib. UE 19.01.2022, T-483/20, Tecnica Group spa c. EUIPO-Zeitneu GmbH.

Non ci son passaggi particolarmente interessanti in diritto, essendo largamente basata sui fatti (previa un’ ampia trattazione di questioni processuali, questa si interessante: §§ 20-74).

Ricordo solo le considazioni generali sul marchio  e su quello di forma :

–It is not necessary, for that purpose, for the mark to convey exact information about the identity of the manufacturer of the product or the supplier of the services. It is sufficient that the mark enables members of the public concerned to distinguish the goods or services that it designates from those which have a different commercial origin and to conclude that all the goods or services that it designates have been manufactured, marketed or supplied under the control of the proprietor of the mark and that the proprietor is responsible for their quality (see judgment of 25 April 2018, Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO – Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK), T‑213/17, not published, EU:T:2018:225, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited)., § 83;

– Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark (see judgments of 22 June 2006, Storck v OHIM, C‑25/05 P, EU:C:2006:422, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited, and of 19 September 2012, Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red, T‑50/11, not published, EU:T:2012:442, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).   88.    It is apparent from those considerations that only a three-dimensional mark, consisting of the appearance of the product itself, which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, § 87.

Non sfucgge che il concetto chiave è quello a) del motivo per cui si arriva alla necessità di distacco significativo (departs significantly) e b) del conseguente contenuto di tale cocnetto.

Allo scopo, l’assenza di tale requisito non implica necessariamente che debba ricorrere la totale somiglianza con i prodotti già in commercii, potendo anche sussistere qualche differenza: it is important to point out that, contrary to what the applicant claims, in order to ascertain whether the three-dimensional mark departs significantly from the customs or norms of the sector, it is not necessary to show that there are other goods on the market which reproduce all the features of the contested mark. As the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out, in order to conclude that there is no distinctive character, it is not necessary for the contested mark to be identical to existing shapes but for the overall impression conveyed by that mark not to depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector. In other words, the fact that a mark has an overall shape which is similar to variants of the product which are usually available on the market does not permit the finding that the mark, as a whole, departs significantly from the customary shapes in the sector, § 95.

Si legge poi il vero motivo della mancanza di tale distacco dalla prassi del settore: la preesistenza di altre scarpe sportive di foggia simile , § 97.

Da ultimo, il Trib. condivide la stima di elemento non distintivo della suola, della sua altezza e della disposizione dei lacci, § 100. Pertanto <<the Board of Appeal was right in finding that the constituent elements of the contested mark, taken individually, and the shape of boot taken as a whole, will be perceived by the relevant public as possible, or even common, variants of the presentation and decoration of winter boots and after-ski boots, which are part of the goods at issue since they are incorporated into the ‘footwear’ and which can also include ‘footwear soles; insoles; heelpieces for footwear; footwear uppers’>>, § 101..

Sulla distintività di un marchio tridimensionale il caso degli stivali da neve Moon Boot

La Commissione di ricorso dell’EUIPO (di seguito solo: la Commissione) ha dato torto alla società italiana, produttrice dei notissimi stivali da neve Moon Boot, che pretendeva di proteggerli come marchio di forma. Si tratta della decisione 18 maggio 2020 nel proc. R 1093/2019-1, Tecnica Group SPA contro Zeitneu GmBH, (leggibile nel database EUIPO https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#basic/*///number/1093%2F2019-1 )

Moon Boot richiesti in registrazione come marchio 3D (foto tratta dal database eSearch, EUIPO)

Nel 2011 veniva depositata domanda di marchio tridimensionale del noto stivale (vedi foto sopra) e la domanda veniva accolta con registrazione nell’anno successivo. Nel 2017 ne veniva però richiesto da società svizzera l’annullamento per mancanza di distintività; nel 2019 veniva accolta l’istanza dichiarandosi la nullità del marchio per i motivi indicati al § 6.

La Commissione precisa che la normativa di riferimento è costituita dal reg. 2017/1001, § 11.

Al § 26 la Commissione ricorda la giurisprudenza a cui intende attenersi in materia di marchi tridimensionali.

Particolarmente importanti sono gli ultimi tre trattini che qui riporto

<< –  However, the perception of the average consumer is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the products it designates. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape in the absence of any graphic or textual element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark (20/10/2011, C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P, Botella esmerilada II, EU:C:2011:680, § 46;    –    Only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR (20/10/2011, C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P, Botella esmerilada II, EU:C:2011:680, § 47);   –    Therefore, where a three-dimensional mark consists of the shape of the product in respect of which registration is sought, the mere fact that that shape is a ‘variant’ of a common shape of that type of product is not sufficient to establish that the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. It must always be determined whether such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention (see, to that effect, judgment of 07/10/2004, C-136/02 P, Torches, EU:C:2004:592, § 32)>>

Ne segue che <<the shape of the sign must diverge appreciably from the shape that is expected by the consumer – as stated above it must depart significantly from the norm or customs of the sector (19/09/2001, T-30/00, red-white squared washing tablet (fig.), EU:T:2001:223; 04/10/2007, C-144/06 P, Tabs (3D), EU:C:2007:577) – in other words, the shape must be so materially different from basic, common or expected shapes that it enables a consumer to identify the goods just by their appearance. The more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR  >>, § 27

Dopo una disamina fattuale su altri prodotti concorrenti, la Commisisone affronta il profilo del consumatore d riferimento: è quello di tutta l’UE , non essendo legato a fattori linguistici, § 44. Inoltre si tratta del pubblico medio, dato che il marchio <<was registered in particular for footwear which are common goods for which the attentiveness of the relevant public is considered to be average, as their price is not exorbitant and they are not considered items that last a lifetime>>, ivi.

Poi rirpende quanto detto prima e cioè che the <<the perception of the relevant public is not necessarily the same in relation to a threedimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the goods themselves as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the goods it designates. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark>>, § 45

Le caratteristiche distintive dello stivale o meglio della sua forme, secondo il titolare, sono quelle indicate al § 47: molte però hanno valenza technica o funzionale, § 48.

Inoltre molte sono usate dai concorrenti § 50 e segg. e ciò spt. per il laccio esterno,  § 51.

(si noti poi il profilo procedurale della utilizzabilità dei documenti presenti nei siti puntati da  link indicati dalle parti: ed anche se autonomamente ivi reperiti dall’Ufficio, parrebbe: § 54)

In breve ci sono molti altri concorrenti che offrono prodotti analoghi (per cui non c’è stato il distanziametno dalle prassi commerciali di settore, sopra ricordato) nè c’è stata prova che si tratti di licenziatari del titolare o comunque di prodotti a lui riconducibili, § 55.

La forma sub iudice, del resto, è tipica del c.d. doposci, § 56.

Bisogna insomma capire se <<such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention>>, § 59

Per cui ciò che alla fine conta è vedere se <<the shape as a whole departs significantly from the norms and customs of the sector. Therefore, although it is relevant, it is not necessarily fatal that some (perhaps even, all) of the features of a shape are not unique to the mark at issue or unusual in the sector concerned. Equally, the presence of one or more features which are  unique to the shape at issue, or at least unusual in the sector concerned, does not automatically mean that the shape as a whole departs significantly from the norms and customs of the sector. This may be a factor when, considered by itself, the unique or unusual feature(s) in question makes only a small contribution to the overall impression created by the shape>> § 61

Nel caso specifico la Commisione conclude che l’associazione, che può fare l’utente tra segno e titolare del marchio, essite ma non è univoca, § 63: infatti <<the design is a recognisable shape that is, and always has, subsisted in the fabric of the skiing industry>> § 65.

Nè serve allegare le molte imitazioni: queste, come la giurisprudenza insegna, provano semmai la mancanza di distintività, § 68 (punto teoricamente interessante e forse un pò frettolosamente trattato)

Del resto la forma ad <<L>>  è tipica degli stivali nè hanno distintività le altre caratteristiche dello stivale (suola antiscivolo, rivestimenti per tener caldo, etc.), § 72. Anche i lacci esterni son diffusi nel mercato, § 74.

In sintesi, <<the constituent elements of the contested mark taken individually and the shape created taken as a whole will be perceived by the relevant consumers as possible — or even common — variants of the presentation and decoration of those goods. It is clear from the above that the contested mark is sufficiently similar to other common shapes which are, thus, likely to be used for the goods at issue>> § 75.

Decisione priva di importanti considerazioni  in diritto ed interessante soprattutto per l’applicazione fattuale ad un prodotto che ebbe grandissimo successo commerciale in Italia.