Marcel Pemsel in IPKat ci notizia di Trib. UE 05.02.2025, T-195/24, VistaJet c. EUIPO (ingl./franc.). Il segno chiesto in registrazione era la linea rossa sul fianco dell’areo per servizi di trasporto aereo (v. disegno sotto).
L’istante è risultato soccombente sia presso l’Ufficio che davanti al Trib.
Il passaggio pertinente:
<< 21 In the present case, first, it must be noted that the services covered by the mark applied for are transportation and private aircraft flight planning services, intended primarily for very rich members of the general public, the ‘ultra-wealthy’, who are likely to display a high level of attention, since the factors of safety, punctuality and reliability are all important for the services in question.
22 Second, it must be noted, as the Board of Appeal did, that the mark applied for will not be perceived by the relevant public as having a distinctive character.
23 As the Board of Appeal correctly stated, the mark applied for consists of a red line along the side of a silver aeroplane fuselage, which curves slightly as it follows the line of the fuselage and tapers to a thin point at the front end of the aeroplane.
24 However, a line, which is defined as a continuous set of points or an unbroken elongated line the extent of which is virtually reduced to the single dimension of length, is a simple geometric form, which is not, in itself, capable of conveying a message which consumers will be able to remember. That line and its colour red will be perceived by the relevant public as nothing more than banal decorative devices, as will the choice of a silver fuselage.
25 It is clear from settled case-law that a sign which is excessively simple and is constituted of a basic geometrical figure, such as a circle, a line, a rectangle or a conventional pentagon, is not, in itself, capable of conveying a message which consumers will be able to remember, with the result that they will not regard it as a trade mark unless it has acquired distinctive character through use (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 September 2005, BioID v OHIM, C‑37/03 P, EU:C:2005:547, paragraphs 72 and 74, and of 29 September 2009, The Smiley Company v OHIM (Representation of half a smiley smile), T‑139/08, EU:T:2009:364, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
26 In any event, the fact that it could be argued that the mark applied for does not merely represent a basic geometrical figure does not suffice, as such, to support the view that it has the minimum distinctive character necessary for registration as an EU trade mark. There must also be certain characteristics of the sign which may be easily and instantly memorised by the relevant public and which would make it possible for the sign to be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 2016, Novartis v EUIPO (Representation of a grey curve and representation of a green curve), T‑678/15 and T‑679/15, not published, EU:T:2016:749, paragraphs 40 and 41 and the case-law cited).
27 It has also already been held that, whilst colours are capable of conveying certain associations of ideas and of arousing feelings, they possess little inherent capacity for communicating specific information. That is all the more the case since they are commonly and widely used, because of their appeal, in order to advertise and market goods and services without any specific message (see judgment of 6 September 2023, Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position of the colours white, red and dark green on cuboid packaging), T‑276/22, not published, EU:T:2023:497, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited; see also, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2004, Heidelberger Bauchemie, C‑49/02, EU:C:2004:384, paragraph 38).
28 In the present case, in the absence of elements capable of distinguishing it in such a way that it does not appear as a simple geometrical figure, the red line cannot fulfil an identifying function with respect to the services in question. The colour red is, by its very nature, highly visible and striking and is used primarily for decorative purposes, or to attract attention. Accordingly, it is, in itself, devoid of distinctive character. As for the silver fuselage, the Court considers that that colour does not particularly stand out from the colour white, which is traditionally used in the aviation sector.
29 The Court concludes that, taken as a whole, the mark applied for is excessively simple>>.
Marcel ci notizia nel medesimo post di altra sentenza del Trib. UE (29.01.2025,T‑147/24, Doorinn GmbH v. EUIPO, Franc./ted.) che pure affossa un altro marchio di posizione qui riprodotto (etichetta rossa nell’angolo del materasso).
In entrambi i casi la decisione mi pare esatta (con maggior sicurezza nel secondo).
