Orzecznictwo w zakresie prawa IP i prawa IT

Zagadnienia:
Relative ground for refusal.
Genuine use of the mark.

Znaki towarowe:

Wnioski:
41. To examine whether an earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in a particular case, an overall assessment must be carried out, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case. That assessment entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa. In addition, the turnover and the volume of sales of the product under the earlier trade mark cannot be assessed in absolute terms but must be looked at in relation to other relevant factors, such as the volume of business, production or marketing capacity or the degree of diversification of the undertaking using the trade mark and the characteristics of the products or services on the relevant market. As a result, the Court of Justice has stated that use of the earlier mark need not always be quantitatively significant in order to be deemed genuine. Even minimal use can therefore be sufficient to be deemed genuine, provided that it 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 (order in Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology [2004] ECR I-1159, paragraph 21; LA MER, cited in paragraph 32 above, paragraph 57; see, by way of analogy, Ansul, cited in paragraph 21 above, paragraph 39).

Tekst wyroku:
T-131/06, Rykiel création and diffusion de modèles v. OHMI.

Opublikowany:
—

Zagadnienia:
Znak usługowy
Elementy prawa rozstrzygane w postępowaniu przed instancjami OHIM i w postępowaniu przed Sądem

Znaki towarowe:

Wnioski:
32. Po drugie i przede wszystkim można założyć, że w chwili, stosunkowo niedawnego, przyjęcia rozporządzenia nr 40/94 prawodawca wspólnotowy miał świadomość znaczenia we współczesnym handlu znaków usługowych i mógł w związku z tym rozciągnąć ochronę przyznaną godłom państwowym przez art. 6 ter konwencji paryskiej również na tę kategorię znaków. Ponieważ prawodawca nie uznał za stosowne dokonania takiego rozszerzenia zakresu stosowania właściwych przepisów, nie jest zadaniem sądu wspólnotowego, by go w tym zastąpić i dokonać wykładni contra legem przepisów, których znaczenie w żadnym razie nie jest dwuznaczne.

Treść wyroku:
T-215/06, American Clothing Associates v. OHMI.

Publikator:
—

Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.
Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application.
Identity of services.
Similarity of signs.

Trade marks concerned:
WORLDLINK, LiNK.

Findings:
51. According to the case‑law, the restriction brought about by Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, according to which, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, OHIM’s examination is restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought, does not preclude it from taking into consideration, in addition to the facts expressly put forward by the parties to the opposition proceedings, facts which are well known, that is, which are likely to be known by anyone or which may be learnt from generally accessible sources (Case T‑185/02 Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM – DaimlerChrysler (PICARO) [2004] ECR II‑1739, paragraph 29).

52. In particular, the Board of Appeal may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods (see, to that effect, Case T‑402/02 Storck v OHIM (Shape of a sweet wrapper) [2004] ECR II‑3849, paragraph 58).

Judgment text:
T-325/04, Citigroup v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Issues:
Likelihood of confusion.
To annul Decision R 394/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 November 2003 and Decision 405/2002 of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 February 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought in Application No 1 042 613 in respect of articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear was refused on the basis of Opposition No B 242 059.

Trade marks concerned:
O orsay.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-39/04, Orsay v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.

Trade marks concerned:
GALVALLOY, earlier national word mark GALVALLIA.

Findings:
No likelihood of confusion.

Judgment text:
T-189/05, Usinor v. OHMI.

Published:
—