Orzecznictwo w zakresie prawa IP i prawa IT

Zagadnienia:
Brak rzeczywistego używania znaku towarowego.
Pojęcie „daty zakończenia procedury rejestracji”.

Znaki towarowe:
Le Chef DE CUISINE.

Wnioski:
1) „Data zakończenia procedury rejestracji” w rozumieniu art. 10 ust. 1 pierwszej dyrektywy Rady 89/104/EWG z dnia 21 grudnia 1988 r. mającej na celu zbliżenie ustawodawstw państw członkowskich odnoszących się do znaków towarowych winna być określana w każdym państwie członkowskim stosownie do obowiązujących w tym państwie przepisów proceduralnych dotyczących rejestracji.

2) Artykuł 12 ust. 1 dyrektywy nr 89/104 należy interpretować w ten sposób, że stanowią „uzasadnione podstawy nieużywania” znaku towarowego przeszkody, które pozostają w bezpośrednim związku z tym znakiem towarowym, czyniąc jego używanie niemożliwym lub pozbawionym sensu, i zachodzą niezależnie od woli uprawnionego do tego znaku towarowego. Do sądu krajowego należy ocena okoliczności faktycznych sprawy w postępowaniu głównym w świetle tych wskazówek.

Tekst wyroku:
C-246/05, Häupl.

Opublikowany:
OJ C 183 of 04.08.2007, p.4.

Zagadnienia:
Genuine use of the mark.

Znaki towarowe:
La Mer, Laboratoire de la mer.

Wnioski:
1. Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that there is genuine use of a trade mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by that mark. When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial use of the mark is real in the course of trade, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark. When it serves a real commercial purpose, in the circumstances cited above, even minimal use of the mark or use by only a single importer in the Member State concerned can be sufficient to establish genuine use within the meaning of the Directive.

2. While First Directive 89/104 makes the classification of use of the trade mark as genuine use consequential only on consideration of the circumstances which pertain in respect of the relevant period and which predate the filing of the application for revocation, it does not preclude, in assessing the genuineness of use during the relevant period, account being taken, where appropriate, of any circumstances subsequent to that filing. It is for the national court to determine whether such circumstances confirm that the use of the mark during the relevant period was genuine or whether, conversely, they reflect an intention on the part of the proprietor to defeat that claim.

Tekst wyroku:
C-259/02, La Mer Technology.

Opublikowany:
[2004] ECR I-1159.

Zagadnienia:
Revocation of a trade mark.
Notion of genuine use of a trade mark.

Znaki towarowe:
La Mer.

Wnioski:
1. Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that there is genuine use of a trade mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by that mark. When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial use of the mark is real in the course of trade, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark. When it serves a real commercial purpose, in the circumstances cited above, even minimal use of the mark or use by only a single importer in the Member State concerned can be sufficient to establish genuine use within the meaning of the Directive.

2. While First Directive 89/104 makes the classification of use of the trade mark as genuine use consequential only on consideration of the circumstances which pertain in respect of the relevant period and which predate the filing of the application for revocation, it does not preclude, in assessing the genuineness of use during the relevant period, account being taken, where appropriate, of any circumstances subsequent to that filing. It is for the national court to determine whether such circumstances confirm that the use of the mark during the relevant period was genuine or whether, conversely, they reflect an intention on the part of the proprietor to defeat that claim.

Tekst wyroku:
C-259/02, La Mer Technology.

Opublikowany:
OJ C 94, 17.04.2004, p. 14.