La nozione di “uso effettivo”

Nuovi sviluppi sulla domanda di annullamento per non uso del marchio BIG MAC

In un vecchio post avevo dato conto della vittoria di una catena irlandese di supermercati contro il colosso Mc Donalds sul marchio Big Mac

Ora è stata emessa la deicsione giudiziale dal Trib. UE, dopo le contrastanti decisioni amministrative: Trib. UE 5 giugno 2024 , T-58/23, Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd, c. EUIPO e McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd,

Il Trib. annulla in parte la decisione sul reclamo amministrativo (che aveva dato torto ai Supermercati, riformando quella di primo grado) : v. spec. § 1.b (‘chicken sandwiches’) dove anche screenshots.

<<40 That evidence, which amounts to printouts of advertising posters, screenshots of a television advertisement which was broadcast in France in 2016 and screenshots from the Facebook account of McDonald’s France in 2016, does not make it possible to ascertain in what quantities, or with what regularity and recurrence, the goods concerned were distributed. That evidence cannot therefore on its own suffice to establish that the commercial use of the contested mark in connection with ‘chicken sandwiches’ was real.

41 Furthermore, contrary to what EUIPO and the intervener claim in their written pleadings, those documents do not contain any indication as regards the prices at which those goods were marketed.

42 Likewise, the affidavit of one of the intervener’s employees (Annex 17 of EUIPO’s case file) does not contain any specific information regarding the sales figures achieved by the contested mark with regard to ‘chicken sandwiches’. The data submitted are merely raw data, which are not broken down in relation to the goods, regarding the sales of ‘Big Mac’ in France between 2013 and 2017.

43 Lastly, although it is true, as the intervener states in its written pleadings, that one of the specific features of the fast-food sector is to offer goods which are not always available, but which recur with a certain regularity, the documents taken into account by the Board of Appeal do not, however, serve to prove that there was genuine use of the contested mark in connection with ‘chicken sandwiches’, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 25 above. Those documents show with certainty only that there was insignificant use of the contested mark in connection with ‘chicken sandwiches’ with regard to 2016, as is apparent from the screenshots produced (Annexes 10d and 12c of EUIPO’s case file).

44 First, the date on which the advertising posters and menu boards submitted (Annex 2 of EUIPO’s case file) were disseminated to the public or the date on which the goods at issue were marketed is not clear from those posters and boards. Consequently, those documents, which, moreover, appear to be drafts in view of the word ‘confidential’ in them, do not contain, with the exception of the words ‘limited duration’, any information regarding their dissemination or the marketing of the goods in question to the public. The words ‘November/December 2015’ and ‘September – November 2016’, which have been added by hand and are located outside the frame of the advertising posters, cannot, in the light of their handwritten nature and location, constitute a reliable and definite indication regarding the date on which they were disseminated to the public or regarding the date on which the goods were marketed.

45 Secondly, contrary to what the intervener claims in its written pleadings, the screenshots from the Facebook account of McDonald’s France in connection with the goods concerned relate only to the year 2016 (29 September and 8 October). The screenshot bearing the date of 28 December 2015 concerns only the ‘meat sandwich’.

46 Thirdly, it is true that the Google analytics report relating to the data regarding access to the intervener’s websites which was submitted before the Board of Appeal (Annex 15b of EUIPO’s case file) does indeed contain two entries which concern the ‘grand Big Mac chicken’. However, those data are not broken down by year, but relate to the period from 1 April 2012 to 1 April 2017, with the result that they do not serve to establish precisely and with certainty the frequency and regularity with which the contested mark was used in connection with ‘chicken sandwiches’. In any event, that document does not bear out the existence of use of the contested mark in connection with ‘chicken sandwiches’ with regard to 2015. That document appears only to show a slight peak in use of the contested mark with regard to the end of 2013 and with regard to 2016.

47 It follows from all of the foregoing that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence provided by the intervener was sufficient to prove genuine use of the contested mark in connection with ‘chicken sandwiches’ in France from 2015 to 2016>>.

L’uso di marchio leggermente modificato salva quello registrato dalla decadenza per non uso

Il Trib. UE 24.01.2024, T-562/22, Noah Clothing c. EUIPO-Yannick Noah, offre un esempio di applicazione dell’art. 18.1.a), reg. 2017/1001 (“sono inoltre considerate come uso: a) l’utilizzazione del marchio UE in una forma che si differenzia per taluni elementi che non alterano il carattere distintivo del marchio nella forma in cui esso è stato registrato”).

Marchio registrato:

marchio usato nei fatti:

Per il Trib. il secondo è poco diverso dal primo, per cui lo salva dalla decadenza.

<<61 In that regard, first, the upper-case letter ‘Y’ followed by a full stop before the word ‘noah’ constitutes a repetition of an element already present in the figurative element of the mark at issue, which is described by its proprietor as consisting, inter alia, of an upper-case letter ‘Y’ in black. Secondly, that letter is placed below the figurative element, which dominates the overall impression both of the mark as registered, in conjunction with the word ‘noah’, and the modified mark, with the result that, although it is not negligible, it occupies a secondary position in the perception of that mark.

62 In addition, the use of signs consisting of surnames is common in the clothing sector (judgment of 20 February 2013, Caventa v OHIM – Anson’s Herrenhaus (B BERG), T‑631/11, not published, EU:T:2013:85, paragraph 64). Therefore, as regards the conceptual meaning of the mark at issue, the word element ‘noah’ may be perceived, both in the registered form and the modified form, as a surname that refers to a specific person, namely the intervener.

63 In any event, the applicant itself acknowledges, in paragraph 56 of the application, that the word element ‘noah’, as it appears in the registered form and in the modified form of the mark at issue, may be perceived as a surname.

64 Lastly, it must be noted, as EUIPO did, that the addition of the first letter of the given name merely reinforces the reference to the intervener.

65 Consequently, it must be held that the mark at issue in its form used in the course of trade may be regarded as broadly equivalent to the mark at issue as registered, since the added element consisting of the upper-case letter ‘Y’ followed by a full stop is neither distinctive nor dominant in the configuration of the modified mark. In those circumstances, such an element cannot be perceived by the relevant public as capable of altering the distinctive character of the mark at issue>>.

L’uso come marchio di certificazione non costituisce uso come segno distintivo della provenienza (e cioè come marchio individuale)

Marcel Pemsel su IPKat segnala l’interessante Trib. UE 6 settembr 2023, T-774/21, DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH c. EUIPO-Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ

L’ultima chiede la registrazione del segno seguente:

La DPG fa valere l’anteriorità seguente:

Però di fronte alla richiesta di prova del genuine use (da noi art. 178.4 cpi; in UE art. 47.2 reg. 1001 del 2017) , la DPG non vi riesce.

Essa sovraintende al sistema tedesco di riciclo di bottiglie e packaging : per cui l’ampia prova della presenza del segno sui prodotti degli associati non vale prova del suo uso, dato che l’aveva chiesto e ottenuto come marchio individuale e non di certificazione.

<<41 That being said, it is appropriate to examine whether, beyond that function of certifying such goods, the earlier sign also fulfilled, in the light of the evidence adduced by the applicant, the function of identifying the commercial origin of the services covered by that sign.

42 In that connection, the applicant maintains that when business consumers saw the earlier sign on the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system, on the invoices and on its website, they perceived it as an individual mark indicating the commercial origin of the services covered by that sign.

43 As a preliminary point, it must be stated that the applicant’s line of argument relates only to the nature of use of the earlier sign in relation to the services covered by that sign, that is, the services referred to in paragraph 7 above.

44 Regarding, first, the nature of use of the earlier sign on the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system, it is true that all the pages of that document are marked with the sign.

45 However, the graphic elements of that sign such as the bottle, the can and the curving arrow pointing to the left are symbols used throughout the European Union to denote the recycling process or recycling services and are placed on items to be recycled (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 April 2019, Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO – DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle and an arrow), T‑477/18, not published, EU:T:2019:240, paragraphs 32 to 34).

46 Accordingly, when such a sign is affixed to a legal document such as the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system, it will in all likelihood be understood as referring, on the part of business consumers, to the recycling process in itself and to the fact that certain goods are subject to a specific recycling system, that is, the DPG system, and not as indicating the commercial origin of the services covered by the earlier sign.

47 That perception is borne out by the wording of those terms and conditions of participation because, as noted by the Board of Appeal, those terms and conditions present the earlier sign systematically as a marking element of disposable drinks packaging for the purposes of certifying that those goods are covered by the DPG system.

48 Accordingly, inter alia, Article 1.2 of Part I of the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system, which is part of the section entitled ‘Fundamental Principles of the DPG System and functions of the System Participants’, specifies that the earlier sign serves as a ‘symbol’ for the mandatory deposit. Similarly, Article 1.1 of Section 1 of Part II of those terms and conditions provides that the packaging concerned must be marked in such a way as not to impair the meaning of the earlier sign, that is, that that packaging is ‘subject to the mandatory deposit’.

49 Likewise, where Annex 1 to the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system in its 2013 version – which does not differ substantially from the 2016 version – describes the characteristics of the earlier sign, it does not do so in relation to the services covered by that sign. That annex, entitled ‘Specifications for First Distributors regarding the Marking of DPG Packaging’, merely sets out the various components of the earlier sign in order to assist first distributors in marking disposable drinks packaging. The way in which the earlier sign is presented within that annex thus refers to its function of certifying that the goods concerned are subject to the DPG system.

50 Further, the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system associate the earlier sign more closely with the activities of the professionals participating in the DPG system than with the services covered by that sign. In particular, according to Article 2 of Section 1 of Part V of those terms and conditions, collectors are encouraged to display the sign in the context of their operations in order to ‘disclose [their] participation in the DPG System’. From that perspective, the earlier sign serves to indicate that certain operators specialising in the collection, treatment and recycling of waste contribute to the implementation of the DPG system as collectors rather than to designate the services concerned.

51 In those circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that business consumers will perceive the marking of the earlier sign on the terms and conditions of participation in the DPG system, irrespective of its certification function, as an indication of the commercial origin of the services covered by that sign.

52 Regarding, second, the invoices submitted by the applicant, it must first be stated that they are marked by the earlier sign on the top right and that sign is juxtaposed with the applicant’s business name, that is, ‘DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH’, which is set out in large underlined letters in bold type on the top left.

53 As is apparent from paragraphs 45 and 46 above, the elements making up the earlier sign are not designed to refer, on the part of business consumers, to the commercial origin of a specific category of services, but rather to the fact that certain goods are subject to a specific recycling system, that is, the DPG system.

54 Moreover, the applicant submits that, according to case-law, the use of the earlier sign together with the business name of its proprietor on invoices does not, in principle, preclude that sign from being able to refer to the commercial origin of the services covered by that sign.

55 In that connection, it must be stated that, in paragraphs 74 and 77 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal did not assert that the earlier sign marking the invoices was not perceived as indicating the commercial origin of the services covered by that sign on the ground that it was used together with the applicant’s business name.

56 Regarding the content of the invoices, they display the amount of the participation fees payable by the participants in the DPG system. The invoices thus stated that those fees are calculated according to the approximate amount of items of DPG packaging that the first distributor intends to put into circulation on the German market. Having regard to that wording, the invoicing of the services provided by the applicant and, moreover, covered by the earlier sign have a merely indirect link to that sign, as the sign was associated more closely with the activity of the first distributors and thereby with its use of certifying that the packaging concerned is covered by the DPG system.

57 Having regard to the foregoing, the applicant, which bears the burden of proof, has not shown that, in addition to the earlier sign’s primary function of certification, business consumers perceived the affixing of that sign to the invoices as an indication of commercial origin of the services covered by that sign.

58 Third, the use of the earlier sign on the applicant’s website is similarly not sufficient to show that the relevant public perceives the sign as referring to the commercial origin of the services designated by that sign.

59 As considered by the Board of Appeal, on the applicant’s website, the services which it provides and which are, moreover, designated by the earlier sign are associated, inter alia, with the applicant’s business name, that is, ‘DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH’. By contrast, the earlier sign is present only at the top left of that website, with the result that business consumers are not guided on the applicant’s website by any element that is sufficiently clear to enable them to associate the services concerned with that sign.

60 What is more, that site states in its FAQ that, in essence, in order to comply with regulatory requirements concerning marking of disposable drinks packaging, it is necessary to display the earlier sign on the packaging in question. Thus, the sign is presented as being a marking element used for the purposes of certifying that the packaging concerned was part of the DPG system.

61 In those circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that, in addition to the earlier sign’s primary function of certifying that the packaging concerned is part of the DPG system, business consumers perceived the use of that sign on the applicant’s website as an indication of commercial origin of the services covered by that sign.

62 Having regard to all the foregoing, the Court holds that the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the earlier sign has been put to genuine use in accordance with the essential function of individual marks within the European Union in respect of the services for which it was registered>>.

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

Il ruolo del colore nei marchi figurativi semplici (chevrons zig-zag, strisce etc.)

Marcel Pemsel in IPKat dà notizia di un interssante ed analitica decisione di appello dell’ufficio di Alicante relativa ad un marchio composto da due freccette (chevrons) che però erano state poi usate a colori invertiti.

Si tratta di EUIPO 2nd board of appel 10.03.2023, case R 1422/2022-2, Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings, LLC v. HUMMEL HOLDING A/S .

L’ufficio svaluta il ruolo del colore e dice che l’inversione non altera la distintività (la domanda era di revoca per non uso) , sempre che la figura non sia banale o troppo semoplice. Il rif. è all’art. 18.1.a) del reg. 1001 del 2017.

” § 53 However, the contested IR in the present appeal is not extremely simple unlike the aforementioned case with three parallel black lines, that did not even have the minimum degree of distinctive character. It is not denied that the distinctiveness of the two-chevron device is somewhat below average. Nevertheless, the sign in question consists of two identical chevrons, which are not basic geometric shapes (by analogy, 07/09/2022, R 615/2022-2, Gelber Strich mit linkem Knick (fig.), § 14). What characterises this sign is the outline of the two chevrons, their equal thickness and width and the equal distance between them. Chevrons or V-shaped marks can be presented in multiple ways showing different characteristics (as shown for instance in the examples of registered EUTMs provided by the IR holder on 18 June 2020: , , , , etc.). In contrast, the thickness of the lines and the space between them are the sole features that set a sign made of three vertical lines apart from others. Consequently, even minor changes are able to change the distinctive character of three vertical lines. Following from the above, the Board is of the opinion that the use of the sign does not alter the distinctive character of the contested IR . This is because the chevrons maintain the same outline, the same distance between them, they have an identical thickness and width”.

La posizione dell’Ufficio è di dubbia esattezza , stante l’importanza che il colore riveste nella moda di largo consumo: ma alla fine è forse esatto che il cunsumatore ricolleghi il segno nuovo (con colori invertiti) al precedente ed originario

Uso del marchio in forma diversa da quella registrata e relativa prova

In relazione alla prova dell’uso chiesta dall’istante a carico di chi oppone un’anteriorità (art. 42.2. reg. 207/2009, da noi art. 178.3 cpi), è interessante Tribunale UE 8 marzo 2023, T-372/21, Sympatex Technologies GmbH c. EUIPO-Livve Espanola SA.

Se ne possono trare infatti utili indicaizoni a livello pratico-opertivi sul sempre critico punto della prova dell’uso.

Inoltre esamina la norma -complessa pure a livello teorico- dell’uso del segno “in una forma che si differenzia per taluni elementi che non alterano il carattere distintivo del marchio nella forma in cui esso è stato registrato, a prescindere dal fatto che il marchio sia o no registrato nella forma in cui è usato a nome del titolare;” , art. 15.1.b) reg. 207 cit.-art. 24.2 cpi.

Ci sono infine le consuete argomentazioni sul giudizio di confondibilità