Gli impedimenti relativi e altre cause di nullità

Marchio valido se riferito a prodotti/servizi identici ma con segno uguale solo nella parte non distintiva

Si consideri il marchio successivo:

Si considerino ora le due anteriorità della società Tour de France:

Ebbene, per il Tribunale UE 12 June 2024, T-604/22, soc. Tour de France c. EUIPO –FitX Beteiligungs GmbH, non c’è confondibilità, nonostasnte la rinomanza dei segni opposti come anteriori:

<<62 In the present case, the Board of Appeal concluded, in paragraph 100 of the contested decision, that, in view of the clear differences between the rights at issue, a likelihood of confusion could be safely ruled out, despite the identity and similarity of the goods and services in question and the enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier rights for the services in respect of the organisation of cycling competitions in Class 41.

63 The applicant disputes that assessment, submitting that, in the light of the fact that the earlier rights enjoy enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use or even an exceptional reputation, that the rights at issue are similar on account of the identity of the first part ‘tour de’, and that the goods and services in question are identical or very similar, the relevant public may believe that those goods and services come from the same undertaking or, at the very least, from economically linked undertakings.

64 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

65 In that regard, it must be held that, in the context of a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, as a result of the low degree of distinctiveness of the only common element ‘tour de’, and of the low degree of similarity between the rights [tra i concetti evocati, semmai, giammai tra diritti] at issue, the relevant public will not confuse those rights, despite the identity or similarity of the goods and services in question and the enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier rights for the services in respect of the organisation of cycling competitions in Class 41. In that context, the error of assessment made by the Board of Appeal in that it found that there was no conceptual similarity between the rights at issue, which is apparent from paragraph 50 above, has no bearing on the outcome of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

66 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009>>.

‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark: la necessità del consenso del portatore del nome non viola il diritto difree speech

La corte suprema USA nega contrasti tra il Primo Emendamento e la norma (15 us code 1052(c), corrispondente più o meno al nostro art. 8 CPI) , per cui serve il consenso del titolare del nome per registrarlo come marchio.

Si tratta di SCOTUS 13.06.2024, No. 22–704, VIDAL vs ELSTER.

Sentenza interessante per la teoricità del problema dell’applicazione del diritto di free speech ad una pratica commercial-lucrativa.

Dal Syllabus iniziale (subito dopo aver spiegato la ratio di tutela del marchio nellordinamento USA):

<<(c) The history and tradition of restricting trademarks containing
names is sufficient to conclude that the names clause is compatible
with the First Amendment. Pp. 12–19.
(1) Restrictions on trademarking names have historically been
grounded in the notion that a person has ownership over his own
name, and that he may not be excluded from using that name by an-
other’s trademark. See Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540,
544. The common law prevented a person from trademarking any
name—even his own—by itself. It did, however, allow a person to ob-
tain a trademark containing his own name, provided that he could not
use the mark containing his name to the exclusion of a person with the
same name. The common-law approach thus protected only a person’s
right to use his own name, an understanding that was carried over
into federal statutory law and included in the names clause. The Court
finds no evidence that the common law afforded protection to a person
seeking a trademark of another living person’s name. This common-
law understanding is reflected in federal statutory law, and its re-
quirement that a trademark contain more than merely a name re-
mains largely intact. See §1052(e)(4). It is thus unsurprising that the
Lanham Act included the names clause.
The restriction on trademarking names also reflects trademark
law’s historical rationale of identifying the source of goods and thus
ensuring that consumers know the source of a product and can evalu-
ate it based upon the manufacturer’s reputation and goodwill. Moreo-
ver, the clause respects the established connection between a trade-
mark and its protection of the markholder’s reputation. This Court has long recognized that a trademark protects the markholder’s repu-
tation, and the connection is even stronger when the mark contains a
person’s name.
Applying these principles, the Court has also recognized that a party
has no First Amendment right to piggyback off the goodwill another
entity has built in its name. See San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc.
v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U. S. 522, 528. By protecting a
person’s use of his name, the names clause “secur[es] to the producer
the benefits of [his] good reputation.” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park
& Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198. Pp. 12–19.
(2) A tradition of restricting the trademarking of names has coex-
isted with the First Amendment, and the names clause fits within that
tradition. The names clause reflects the common-law tradition by pro-
hibiting a person from obtaining a trademark of another living per-
son’s name without consent, thereby protecting the other’s reputation
and goodwill. A firm grounding in traditional trademark law is suffi-
cient to justify the content-based trademark restriction here, but a
case presenting a content-based trademark restriction without a his-
torical analog may require a different approach. In this case, the Court
sees no reason to disturb this longstanding tradition, which supports
the restriction of the use of another’s name in a trademark. P. 19–20.>>

Un interessante e celebre caso di tutela della rinomanza di marchio,. per ora negata dall’ Ufficio italiano

Anna Maria Stein in IPKat ci notizia di una interessante sentenza (dep. 16.04.2024 n. 296/24-ric. 8043) della ns Commissione dei Ricorsi sul caso e marchio Elettra Lamborghini.

In breve l’attrice , nipote del fondatore della casa automobilistica, aveva chiesto la registrazione del marchio costituito dal suo nome anche per classi uguali a quelle della nota casa automobilistica. La quale si è opposta azionando la rinomanza.

La Commissione, rovesciando la decisione amministrativa, esclude l’abuso della rinmanza in quanto : – il segno avrebbe acquisto una sua notorietà indipendentemente dalla nota Casa , per cui non ne avrebbe trarrebbe indebito vantaggio; – ex art. 8/3 cpi, la notorietà civile permette la registrazione.

Il econdo è il punto teoricamente interessante.

La decisione lascia però perplessi. La norma si limita ad escludere i terzi dalla registrazione, ma non dà un diritto al titolare del nome civile più ampio di quelle che spetta al titolare di nome non famoso.

La norma governante il caso è solo quella sulla rinomanza, art. 12.1.e) cpi.

L’importanza del poter azionare un marchio di rinomanza, invece che ordinario

Marcel Pemsel su IPKat segnala Cancellation Division EUIPO n. C 57137 del 25 aprile 2024, Luis Vuitton c. Yang, come esempio dell’utilità pratica dell’optare per l’azione basata sulla rinomanza nei casi in cui è dubbio ricorrano i requisiti per quella sulla tutela ordinaria.

Non si può che convenirne. Ma quanto ha speso LV nei decenni per il suo marketing?

Marcbio depositato da Yang:

Abnteriuorità azionata da LV:

Ebbene, la domanda di annullamento è accolta sulla base della rinomanza.,

<<Therefore, taking into account and weighing up all the relevant factors of the present case, it must be concluded that, when encountering the contested mark, the relevant consumers will be likely to associate it with the earlier sign, that is to say, establish a mental ‘link’ between the signs. However, although a ‘link’ between the signs is a necessary condition for further assessing whether detriment or unfair advantage are likely, the existence of such a link is not sufficient, in itself, for a finding that there may be one of the forms of damage referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR (26/09/2012, T‑301/09, CITIGATE / CITICORP et al., EU:T:2012:473, § 96)>>.

Poi sull’unfair advantgege: The Cancellation Division agrees with the applicant’s arguments. The contested sign will, through its similarity with the earlier reputed trade mark, attract more consumers to the EUTM proprietor’s goods and will therefore benefit from the reputation of the earlier trade mark. A substantial number of consumers may decide to turn to the EUTM proprietor’s goods due to the mental association with the applicant’s reputed mark, thus misappropriating its powers of attraction and advertising value. This may stimulate the sales of the EUTM proprietor’s goods to an extent that they may be disproportionately high in comparison with the size of the EUTM proprietor’s own promotional investment. It may lead to the unacceptable situation where the EUTM proprietor is allowed to take a ‘free-ride’ on the investment of the applicant in promoting and building up goodwill for the EUTM proprietor’s sign. This would give the EUTM proprietor a competitive advantage since its goods would benefit from the extra attractiveness they would gain from the association with the applicant’s earlier mark. The applicant’s leather goods are known for their traditional manufacturing methods, handcrafted from the highest quality raw materials. The earlier mark is identified with the image of luxury, glamour, exclusivity and quality of the products, and those characteristics can easily be transferred to the contested goods.

Manca del resto la due cause (difesa ai limiti della responsabilità aggravata, civilprocessualmente):

The EUTM proprietor claimed to have due cause for using the contested mark because (1) a search of trade mark registers with effect in the EU did not reveal any trade marks identical or similar to the contested sign; and (2) the name of the famous Italian Piazza Vittorio is the inspiration for the name ‘VITTORIO’. The applicant wanted to dedicate her brand to Italianism, to Rome and to the place where she lives with her family.

These EUTM proprietor arguments do not amount to ‘due cause’ within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR. Due cause under Article 8(5) EUTMR means that, notwithstanding the detriment caused to, or unfair advantage taken of, the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade mark, registration and use by the EUTM proprietor of the mark for the contested goods may be justified if the EUTM proprietor cannot be reasonably required to abstain from using the contested mark, or if the EUTM proprietor has a specific right to use the mark for such goods that takes precedence over the earlier trade mark. In particular, the condition of due cause is not fulfilled merely by the fact that a search of trade mark registers having effect in the EU has not revealed any trade marks identical or similar to the contested sign. Nor can the fact that ‘VITTORIO’ coincides with the name of a square in Turin justify its use as part of the sign, which would take unfair advantage of the reputation built up through the efforts of the proprietor of the earlier mark.

Ci sono anche ragine considerazione in fatto suilla provba dell’uso di cu iè onerata LV ed art. 64 c.23 -3 EUTMR

Non c’è confondibilità (somiglianza tra segni) se il marchio denominativo altrui è assai tenuamente evocato, anzi lasciato solo intuire

Si considerino i segni a paragone:

SEcondo il board of appeal EUIPO 19.02.2024, case R 1147/2023-1, Hyundai v. Global Trade services, non c’è somiglianza tra segni e quindi il primo è registrabile.

<<Contrary to the opponent’s claims, the Board agrees with the contested decision that consumers will not be able to read any letters in the contested sign but will perceive only vertical bars of different heights, two of which have dots. The contested sign is missing the horizontal lines, which is an essential component of the normal graphic representation of the verbal element ‘hyundai’, without which the relevant public will have difficulty in recognising that verbal element. Consequently, the contested sign will not be immediately and without any mental effort recognised as the verbal element ‘hyundai’. It is much more probable that the contested sign will be recognised only as the combination of some basic figurative elements. Only after an in-depth analysis, which consumers do not tend to perform (26/03/2021, R 551/2018-G, Device (fig.) / Device (fig.), § 52), might very stylised representations of the verbal element ‘hyundai’ be perceive>>

Marcel Pemsel in IPkat dà notizia della e link alla decisione.

Curiosamente una sua ricerca nella AI Gemini di Google gli dà questo esito: <<The image you sent me appears to be a trademark image filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It depicts a blue logo on a white background, but without any additional context, it is impossible to say for certain what the logo represents or what company or organization it belongs to. […] >>

A me invece, con uguale prompt, Gemini dà esito opposto, riferendosi proprio alla parola Hyundai:

Ma l’AI non è il consumatore medio, essendo la sua logica operativa assai diversa da quella umana (parrebbe).

La sconfitta di Tesla sul marchio per birre GIGABIER presso l’EUIPO

Marcel Pemsel su IPKaT dà notizia della sconfitta amministrativa (per ora) di Testla sul marchio GIGABIER per birre.

E’ la decisione della divisione di opposizione OPPOSITION Nо B 3 162 062, Tesla c. Juicyphant GmbH, 20.09.2023.

La norma azionata dall’opponente Tesla è l’art. 8.4 reg. Ue 1001 del 2017, per cui:

<<4. In seguito all’opposizione del titolare di un marchio non registrato o di un altro segno utilizzato nella normale prassi commerciale e di portata non puramente locale, il marchio richiesto è escluso dalla registrazione se e in quanto, conformemente a una normativa dell’Unione o alla legislazione dello Stato membro che disciplina detto segno:

a)	sono stati acquisiti diritti a detto contrassegno prima della data di presentazione della domanda di marchio UE, o della data di decorrenza del diritto di priorità invocato per presentare la domanda di marchio UE;

b)	questo contrassegno dà al suo titolare il diritto di vietare l’uso di un marchio successivo.>>

così interpretato dall’ufficio:

<<Therefore, the grounds of refusal of Article 8(4) EUTMR are subject to the following requirements:

• the earlier sign must have been used in the course of trade of more than local significance prior to the filing of the contested trade mark;

• pursuant to the law governing it, prior to the filing of the contested trade mark, the opponent acquired rights to the sign on which the opposition is based, including the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark;

• the conditions under which the use of a subsequent trade mark may be prohibited are fulfilled in respect of the contested trade mark.

These conditions are cumulative. Therefore, where a sign does not satisfy one of those conditions, the opposition based on a non-registered trade mark or other signs used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR cannot succeed>>.

Tesla non riesce a dare questa prova.

Il ragionameno in diritto non è particolarmente interessante.

Lo è quello in fatto, anche se troppo detagliato per essere riporatto in toto.

Mi limito alla conclòusione:

<<The Opposition Division considers that the evidence does not provide a convincing picture of use of the opponent’s sign prior to the time of the filing of the contested trade mark, nor does it indicate that any such use could be considered as meeting the minimum threshold of ‘use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance’ in the relevant territories, as set out in Article 8(4) EUTMR. Moreover, the documents submitted do not provide any concrete indications as to the potential degree of recognition of the opponent’s sign by the public in the relevant territories at the relevant point in time.

Whether or not a trade sign is of more than mere local significance may be established by demonstrating the existence of a network of economically active branches throughout the relevant territory, but also more simply, for example, by producing invoices issued outside the region in which the proprietor has its principal place of business or press cuttings showing the degree of recognition on the part of the public of the sign relied on (24/03/2009, T-318/06 – T-321/06, General Optica, EU:T:2009:77, § 43). (……)

The opponent’s CEO merely stating that, at some point in the future, they intend to produce/offer a beer under the sign ‘GIGABIER’ does not constitute ‘prior use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance’, contrary to the opponent’s assertions.>>

E infine:

<<Considered in the context of a half hour long speech, the opponent’s CEO only briefly referred to the relevant goods while an image of two empty bottles branded ‘Gigabier’ briefly appeared on the screens behind him. When considered with the other indicia in the evidence referred to above (as well as the weaknesses thereof, including the brevity of the interlude between the opponent’s announcement and the relevant date), it is clear that these Annexes only support the conclusion that the single use of the earlier sign prior to the relevant date is the opponent’s brief announcement at an event in Germany, attended by a maximum of 9,000 people, that a beer may possibly be launched in the future under that brand. The evidence also shows that this announcement attracted some comments on social media. However, the evidence does not show that this single announcement by the opponent during a brief event at the new factory plant in Brandenburg, one day prior to the filing of the contested application, was followed by or attracted the attention of a substantial part of the relevant public in Ireland and/or Denmark. Therefore, the opponent has clearly failed to prove that its use of the sign in the course of trade in Ireland and/or Denmark prior to the relevant date was of more than mere local significance in those territories.

This conclusion is not altered by the content, date or language of publication of the articles submitted as Annex 1, which make no mention of the relevant sign or goods, and instead only refer to the opponent’s plans for/construction of a car manufacturing plant.

The opponent has failed to prove that – at the relevant date – the public in the relevant territories were exposed to or were aware of any of the articles or social media posts submitted as evidence, or indeed of the opponent’s announcement itself. No evidence was submitted (such as invoices, price lists, turnover or sales figures, press clippings or actual advertising) demonstrating the opponent’s prior use of ‘GIGABIER’ for the relevant goods (much less attesting to any significance, duration or intensity thereof) as required under Article 8(4) EUTMR. In the same vein, none of the evidence submitted provides any true or reliable indications as to the relevant public’s degree of awareness of the opponent’s sign (if any) prior to the filing of the contested sign.

Any use, however minimal, which could potentially be established in relation to the claimed sign (for example, the social media posts showing two order confirmations of ‘GIGABIER’/Annex 13, which would in any case amount to only €89 and DKK 700 in terms of sales according to the prices of the products indicated in the 2023 blog excerpts/Annex 14) would only have occurred in 2023 (see Annexes 12-16), which is clearly well after the contested EUTM application’s filing date of 10/10/2021. Furthermore, there are no other indications in the evidence submitted that the opponent even referred to publicly (much less indeed made any actual relevant use of) the sign relied upon between their CEO’s mention of ‘GIGABIER’ in their speech on 09/10/2021 and their Twitter posts in 2023/Annexes 12-16. Indeed, the Danish blog excerpts and articles submitted as Annex 14, dating to 2023, refer to the ‘launch’ of ‘GIGABIER’ having occurred in 2023>>.

Apple Music v. Apple Jazz: il primo marchio (del colosso Apple) cede al secondo (in titolarità al musicista jazz Bertini). Interessante lite sulla novità di marchio

l’appello federale usa 04.04.2023 Case: 21-2301, Bertini c. Apple, riforma la decisione dell USPTO sul marchio APPLE MUSIC (segnalazione di post Mastodon del prof. Lemley)

In lite era l’individuazione della data di priorità del marchio di Apple , dato che Bertini opponeva un proprio uso per concerti jazz dal 1985 del marchio APPLE JAZZ.

Caso molto interessante perchè Apple tentò di unire alla data del prorio inizio d’uso (2015) l’uso fattone da colui che nel 2007 le aveva venduto -nella cessione della casa discografica dei Beatles- pure i marchi della stessa, tra cui “Apple” per “[g]ramophone records featuring music” and “audio compact discs featuring music” . Di questo allegava un primo uso dal 1968!

Il primo grado dell’ufficio rigetta l’opposizione del Bertini ma l’accoglie invece l’appello de quo.

In diritto USA si chiama “taking” la possibilità di unire l’uso di marchi diversi al fine dello stabilire la priorità,, p. 4 ss. Tale concetto giuridico sta al centro della motivazione dela sentenza.

Naturalmente uno dei problemi principali è quiello di determnare l’ampiezza merceologica coperta dal marchio dei Beatles.

conclusione: <<To establish tacking, Apple must therefore show live
musical performances are substantially identical to
gramophone records. There is no need to vacate and remand
for the Board to make a finding on this issue in the
first instance. No reasonable person could conclude, based
on the record before us, that gramophone records and live
musical performances are substantially identical. Nothing
in the record supports a finding that consumers would
think Apple’s live musical performances are within the normal
product evolution of Apple Corps’ gramophone records.
Accordingly, Apple is not entitled to tack its use of
APPLE MUSIC for live musical performances onto Apple
Corps’ 1968 use of APPLE for gramophone records. Because
Apple began using the mark APPLE MUSIC in 2015,
Bertini has priority of use for APPLE JAZZ as to live musical
performances. We therefore reverse the Board’s dismissal
of Bertini’s opposition to Apple’s application to
register APPLE MUSIC>>

Affinità merceologica (assente) tra abbigliamento e gioelleria + requisiti per la tutela extramerceologia della rinomanza: il Tribunale UE sul caso Rolex

Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-726/21, Rolex SA cv. EUIPO-PWT A/S , sull’oggetto.

Di fronte a segni assai simili, la domanda di Rolex è stata ugualmente rigettata per assenza dell’affinità merceologica.

Questo quanto alla tutela ordinaria.

Quanto a quella straordinaria da rinomanza (tutto da vedere se sia esatto qualificarla <extra ordinem>), è anche essa pure rigettata : per carenza dei requisi posti dallrt. 12.1.e) cpi, anzi polsti dall’art. 8.5 reg. 207/2009.

In sostanza Rolex si è mantenuta nel vago anzichè addurre circostanze precise sul pregiudizio e/o sull’indebito vantaggio, previsti in dette disposizioni (basta quindi la prova di uno solo dei tre requisiti posti in alternativa -se si può dire così, dato che non sono due).

Punto importante. Stante la notorietà di Rolex, si potrebbe essere sorpresi, ma forse il T. ha visto giusto: non esiste in diritto il danno in re ipsa.

Gli operatori prendano nota.

Sulla notorietà e sulla tutela extramerceologica dei marchi

Il Tribunale UE 5 ottobre 2022, T-711/20, Puma SE c. EUIPO .- CMSCMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA, sulla lite tra i seguenti marchi:

Ebbene, non è estto escludere la notorietà da un lato e lo sfruttamento/danneggiamento reputazionale dall’altro almeno rispetto all’anteriorità 2 (ex ARt. 8.5 reg. N. 207/2009 ).
I generi merceologici sono totalmente diversi.

Quindi il Trib. UE annulla la deicsione amministrativa.

Altro caso europeo di marchio nullo per assenza di novità

marchio sub iudice: COPAL TREE (denominativo) per alimenti e bevande

Anteriorità opposta (merceologicamente sovrapponibile):

Registrazine nenegata nei due gradi amministrativi.

Decide confermando Trib. UIE 28/09/2022, T-572/21, Copal Tree Brands, Inc. c. EUIPO+1 .

Elemento predmoinante (confermto dal T.):

” 25 In paragraph 41 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal took the view that the earlier mark consisted of two co-dominant elements and that both the figurative element and the word ‘compal’ were distinctive and would attract the attention of the relevant public. It stated that the figurative element, because of its size and eye-catching graphic design, did not play a secondary or merely descriptive role within the mark. Nonetheless, in the Board of Appeal’s view, the word element of the earlier mark plays a ‘somewhat more important’ role within that mark, given that it is the only element of that mark that can be pronounced. As regards the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal took the view that it was also composed of two co-dominant elements, namely the words ‘copal’ and ‘tree’, but that it was to the first word, namely ‘copal’, that the relevant public would pay more attention.

26 In addition, the Board of Appeal was of the opinion, in paragraph 42 of the contested decision, that the signs at issue were both fully distinctive and that neither the figurative element of the earlier mark nor the word ‘tree’ of the mark applied for could be regarded as weakly distinctive elements merely referring to the possible ecological characteristics of the food products at issue”.

Somiglianza visiva di medio grado, § 41, e così quella fonetica, § 47 .

Molto simile invece è l’aspetto fonetico, § 56.

Stanti questi presupposti, difficile evitare il giuidizio di confondibilità, che infatti arriva:

<< 61 In that regard, first, as regards the similarity of the signs at issue, it should be noted that, as stated in paragraphs 41, 47 and 56 above, the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in finding that those signs were visually and phonetically similar to an average degree and conceptually similar to a high degree. Accordingly, contrary to what the applicant claims, those similarities are not too weak.

62 Secondly, as regards the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the parties do not dispute that it must be regarded as normal, as the Board of Appeal found.

63 Thirdly, as noted in paragraphs 20 to 22 above, the goods and services at issue are in part identical and in part similar and the relevant public will have an average level of attention.

64 In the light of all those factors, the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion.

65 In the light of the foregoing, the single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without there being any need to rule on the admissibility of the head of claim seeking annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision of 2 June 2020.>>