il divieto di registrazione in mala fede

Il rideposito del marchio con minime varianti per gli stessi prodotti è in mala fede (ancora su “The Flower Thrower” di Bansky)

Nedim Malovic in IPKat ci notizia della decisione Cancellation Division EUIPO CANCELLATION No C 47 807 (INVALIDITY) 21.12.2023, Full Colour Black Limited, v. Pesta Control office ltd:

<<The above-mentioned circumstances surrounding the application for the contested mark, as well as the chronology of the subsequent events, indicate that the EUTM proprietor’s filing strategy was used with the intention to circumvent the obligation to prove genuine use of the mark. Such conduct cannot be considered as a legitimate business activity having a justifiable commercial logic but, on the contrary, is incompatible with the objectives pursued by the EUTMR and may be considered as an ‘abuse of law’ (by analogy, 07/07/2016, T-82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 52, 22/07/2019, R 1849/2017-2, MONOPOLY, § 78).

While it is true that there is no requirement for an EUTM applicant to declare or to show its intent to use a mark at the moment of its filing, there is also no justification for protecting trade marks unless they are actually used on the market according to the genuine use requirements prescribed by relevant (national/EU) law. Therefore, registrations that are intended to prevent third parties from registering or using identical/similar rights for identical/similar goods and/or services in the future (in relation to all or some of the identified goods and/or services), without any honest commercial logic, may be an indicator of the applicant’s dishonest intention (29/09/2021, T-592/20, Agate / Agate, EU:T:2021:633, § 69) and therefore considered made in bad faith.

All of these circumstances imply that the intention of the EUTM proprietor was indeed to take advantage of the EU trade mark rules by artificially creating the situation where it would not have to prove genuine use of its mark for the contested goods and services which are identical to those covered by its previous, identical EUTM registration.

Taking into account all the factual circumstances relevant to the present case, it is concluded that the filing of the application of the contested EUTM, insofar as it includes the goods and services already covered by an earlier EUTM registration, namely those mentioned above, was made without any commercial logic and thus, in bad faith.

As to the remaining contested goods and services that are not strictly identical to those covered by the EUTM proprietor’s earlier marks, the Cancellation Division considers that bad faith has not been proven, so the request for a declaration of invalidity should be rejected also as far as it is based on this ground (by analogy, 18/05/2023, R 836/2022-4, Cayenne, § 69)>>.

Sono state invece rigettate altre ragioni di nullità (mancanza di distintività ed altri motivi di malafede).

Annullamento di marchio per deposito in malafede anche senza diritto sul segno da parte del richiedente la nullità

Interessante questione decisa da EUIPO-divis. di annull. , proc. n° C 53 081 (nullità) 8 agosto 2023, circa il marchio figurativo UE n. 17 971 130 , Comune di VErona c. Giulietta Verona srl (qui il link alla decisione e qui alla pagina web del database dell’ufficio).

Il procedimento è deciso accogliendo la domanda di deposito in malafede (art. 59.1.b) , reg. 1001 del 2017) ; erano stati tuttavia proposti anche altri motivi (art. 7.1.b-g-i reg. cit.) , forse più azzeccati.

Si tratta di simbolo apposto sul cancello del monumento delle Arche Scaligere in centro a Verona.

Parrebbe allora errato applicare la regola sulla malafede: la quale richiede abuso di un diritto e quindi verso un soggetto determinato, che nel caso mancava dato che il Comune non ha diritti di PI sul disegno.

Nullità del marchio perchè domandato in mala fede: estensione merceologica del giudizio

Trib. UE 22 marzo 2023, T-366/21, Coinbase c. EUIPO+bitFlyer:

<<34 Furthermore, in order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith, all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as an EU trade mark must be taken into consideration, in particular: (i) the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought; (ii) the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and, (iii) the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought (judgment of 11 June 2009, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli, C‑529/07, EU:C:2009:361, paragraph 53).

35 However, it is apparent from the wording used by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 11 June 2009, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (C‑529/07, EU:C:2009:361), that the factors listed are merely examples drawn from a number of factors which may be taken into account in order to decide whether the applicant for registration of a sign as an EU trade mark was acting in bad faith at the time of filing the application for the mark. In that regard, it should be noted that, in the context of the overall analysis undertaken pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, account may also be taken of the origin of the sign and its use since its creation, the commercial logic underlying the filing of the application for registration of that sign as an EU trade mark, and the chronology of events leading up to that filing (see judgment of 16 December 2020, Pareto Trading v EUIPO – Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH), T‑438/18, not published, EU:T:2020:630, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

36 Having regard to the foregoing considerations and in the light of the applicant’s arguments, it is necessary to assess whether the Board of Appeal correctly took into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration by the proprietor of the contested mark.

37 It must be borne in mind that the Board of Appeal considered, in essence, in paragraph 14 of the contested decision, that the scope of the appeal was limited to whether the proprietor of the contested mark acted in bad faith in relation to the dissimilar goods and services in respect of which the mark remained valid. That definition of the scope of the dispute was in line with the applicant’s appeal before the Board of Appeal, which sought the annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division only in so far as it had rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity, namely for the dissimilar goods and services.

38 However, even if the scope of the appeal before the Board of Appeal was limited to the dissimilar products and services, in order to take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case when assessing bad faith, in accordance with the case-law referred to above, the Board of Appeal should nevertheless have taken into consideration the similar products and services. Those goods and services formed part of those referred to by the proprietor of the contested mark at the time of filing its application for registration. Therefore, the assessment of bad faith by the Board of Appeal should have also covered the similar goods and services and the evidence relating to them>>.

Il Trib. annulla la decisione del board of appel accogliendon e l’impugnazione.

Aperta la consultaizone pubblica sul report inerente alla prassi applicativa della regola sulla mala fede in materia di marchi: CP 13 – Common Practice ‘Trade mark applications made in bad faith’, marzo 2023.

Qui la pagina dell’ufficio e qui invece il link diretto al file word .-

Sintesi molto interessante su un tema che potrebbe ritenersi di rara applicazione, mentre invece non è così.

Vedremo quanto vi si avvicinerà il testo definitivo.

Domanda di marchio in mala fede perchè mirante a sottrarre il segno alla massa attiva, gestita dalla Procedura di Insolvenza

interessante caso deciso da Trib. UE 10.01.2023, T-528/21, Neratax ltd v. EUIPO + altri .

In pratica il successivo retgistrante era d’accordo col primo registrante , il quale era caduto in insolvenza e aveva permesso la registrazione e poi lasciando decadere il proprio diritto.

Agiscono in gudizio, per fare valere la malafede del deposito, alcuni creditori della società insolvente (tipo la ns. surrogatoria ex 2900 cc ?’).

Il Trib. conferma le decisioni amminsitrative e ravvisa mala fede nel deposito.

Ratione temporis applica il reg. 207/2009, art. 51.1.b.

<< 49 In that regard, the Board of Appeal, after setting out the chronology of events, found that it had been shown that the filings of the contested marks were a key part of a coordinated strategy, between the applicant and Krentin, to remove earlier national marks of some value from the assets of Krentin while ensuring that they were registered by means of equivalent EU trade marks covering the same goods. The Board of Appeal took the view that, consequently, the contested marks had been filed with the aim of undermining the interests of third parties and not with the aim of supplying the goods concerned to the European market in a climate of fair competition, as the applicant submits.

50 As has been pointed out in paragraph 42 above, it is apparent from the case-law that bad faith can be characterised by, inter alia, the intention of obtaining an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark, in particular the essential function of indicating origin. In the present case, it is apparent from the chronology set out in paragraphs 2 to 18 above that the applicant, first of all, filed the contested marks, which were registered without opposition on the part of Krentin, which was the proprietor of the earlier national marks, and then granted licences in respect of them to Krentin or companies which had close links with Krentin. Thereafter, around two months before it applied to be declared insolvent, Krentin surrendered its rights in the earlier national marks which were equivalent to the contested marks. That had the result of preventing the intellectual property rights conferred by the earlier national marks from forming part of Krentin’s assets although control over them was retained after they had been turned into equivalent EU trade marks.

51 In that regard, the applicant does not provide any plausible explanation regarding the commercial logic underlying the applications for registration of the contested marks. Moreover, it has not adduced any evidence to prove that it actually supplied the goods covered by the contested marks to the European market or even carried out an actual commercial activity other than owning the contested marks and granting them by means of licences to the company which was the proprietor of the earlier national marks or to companies which had close links with that company. It must be stated that the applicant has confined itself to repeating the arguments which it had already submitted before the Board of Appeal, by claiming that it was founded for the purpose of supplying those goods to the European market beginning with Germany and Cyprus. Consequently, and as the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out in the contested decisions, there is no conceivable reason other than that set out in paragraph 50 above for a company like Krentin to agree to having licences granted to itself, over EU trademarks which are equivalent to national marks of which it is the proprietor, and to surrendering its marks afterwards. The applicant’s intention was not therefore that of supplying the goods concerned to the European market as it claims, but that of removing intellectual property rights from Krentin’s assets, as was correctly explained in the contested decision.

52 Furthermore, the contradictions in the applicant’s arguments, which were pointed out by the Board of Appeal, only bear out the existence of a dishonest intention. In that regard, the Board of Appeal pointed out that the applicant had explained, during the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, that there was contact between itself and Krentin only after the applications for registration of the contested marks had been filed. However, as is apparent from paragraph 28 of the application, and as EUIPO has correctly pointed out, the applicant nevertheless claims that it reached an agreement with all the parties involved (Krentin, CREDIN Denmark, Bertzeletos SA and Mr Théodore Bertzeletos) in 2014, before it filed the applications for registration of the contested marks. It must be stated that the applicant has in no way provided any explanations regarding that contradiction.

53 Consequently, the Board of Appeal was right in finding that the applicant had filed the contested marks with the aim of undermining the interests of third parties and not with the aim of supplying the goods concerned to the European market in a climate of fair competition>>.

Ancora sul deposito di marchio in malafede: riforma della decisione amministrativa nel caso Bansky’s monkey

Con post del 25.5.21 avevo dato conto della decisione amminstrativa che giudicava nullo per deposito in malafede il marchio di Bansky rappresentante una scimmia.

Ora la decisione è riformata dall’appello EUIPO con decisione 25.10.2022 case R 1246/2021-5 , Pest Control Office Limited c. Full Colour Black Limited.

Ne dà notizia e il link Eleonora Rosati su IPKat : non c’è malafede nel deposito.

La norma è l’art. 59.1.b ) del reg. 1001 del 2017.

I fatti allegati dal contestante (§ 50) :

<< – The applied for sign is an artwork of graffiti which has been publicly used
being free to be photographed by the general public.
 Banksy himself has permitted the public dissemination of the contested
sign inviting he general public to download it freely from his website.
 Under copyright law, Banksy would be required to reveal his identity in
order to show that he is legitimated to bring an action of copyright
infringement.
 Banksy has made publicly his view on copyright in the sense that copyright
would be ‘something for losers’.
 Banksy has never used the contested mark as a trade mark.
 The contested application has been filed to monopolize the copyright
indefinitely infringing thereby copyright law.
 Until recently Banksy has not brought formal proceedings against any
parties based on his trade mark right.
 Banksy filed the contested mark in order to benefit thereby from the
corresponding exemptions in the trademark system of the USA in the sense
that by showing to have filed an trade mark application there is no need to
show the use of said application before the USPTO.
 Banksy and the representative have expressed that the registrations were
not intended to be used and as such have concocted shame efforts to
mislead the Office to believe that there was such intention>>.

Nessuno di questi tuttavia permette di ravvisare la malafede al momento del deposito.

Non solo son fatti successivi , ma nessuo prova mala fede nell’occupazione dello spazio di privativa: il non uso non è malafede.

Molto interessante è che per l’ufficio malafede non è solo ledere diritti altrui -come si pensa spesso: qui non ci siamo di sicuro. Ma lo è anche “obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark. ” (§ 46).

Ipotesi interessante e al tempo stesso concetto oscuro , che però non permette di superare l’ostacolo dell’esistenza della decadenza per non uso: il mero non uso è disciplinato da quest’ultima, non potendo dunque essere malafede (pur se se ne fosse documentata una programmazione ex ante) .

Nemmeno le dichiaraizoni di rinuncia al copyright possono essere ritenute prova di ex ante intento di occupazione abusiva della privativa (§§ 78 ss).

E’ il punto più interessante a livello teorico. La cosa potrebbe essere dubbia, ma stante l’esistenza della decadenza per non uso solo dopo un quinquennio dalla registrazione, come detto, il non uso è solo da questa regolato (in linea di massima).

Interessante caso di nullità di marchio per registrazione in mala fede

Sul sempre assai antipatico “scippo” di marchio spettante ad altri è istruttivo il caso deciso da Tribunale UE, T‑466/21, Baumberger c. EUIPPO, del 19.10.2022.

Un ristorqtore di Ibiza gestiva dal 2011 il <<Lío club >> includente a restaurant, a cabaret and a nightclub.

Un tedesco, dopo averlo visto sul posto, nel 2015, registrava

per arredo casa e abbigliamento (tazze pentole asciugamani magliette etc.). Ha quindi la pensata di venderlo allo spagnolo: glielo offre prima per 1,5 millioni di euro e poi per 3,5 milioni di euro!!.

Lo spagnolo però aveva delle anteriorità per classi 41 e 43, tipo

Il Trib. conferma l’ufficio circa la nullità per deposito in malafede (art. 59.1.b reg. 2017/1001.

L?interesse come sempre sta nella motivazione che porta al dispositivo e cioè, qui, nel capiure quali sono i fattori che sostengono il giudizio di deposito in malafede.

L’ufficio si era basato su sei aspetti, § 15:

In the first place, the Board of Appeal found that the contested mark was virtually identical to the intervener’s Lío sign.

In the second place, it found that the applicant was fully aware of the intervener’s commercial activity at the time when he applied for registration of that mark.

In the third place, it considered that he had neither shown a proper and economically viable use of the contested mark nor a business activity observing an honest commercial logic and

in the fourth place, that his attempts to sell the contested mark and mark No 17225939 to the intervener appeared to be at odds with ethical and honest commercial practices due to the aspects of undue pressure which they contained.

In the fifth place, it stated that there was no comprehensible connection between the contested mark, the applicant and his activity.

Lastly, in the sixth place, it considered that his explanations were not free from contradictions, in particular as regards his allegedly famous dog and the book about that dog. It concluded that registration of the contested mark had been applied for with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the Lío club. Thus, it took the view that the real purpose was to free-ride on the intervener’s reputation and take advantage of that reputation, in particular by selling the contested mark and mark No 17225939 for a disproportionate price.

Aspetti tutti confermati dal T.

Cos’ ragione in conclusione il T.:

<< 77 The Board of Appeal found that, taking account of the six factors which it considered relevant, the applicant intended to unduly profit from the Lío club’s repute as operated by the intervener when the applicant applied for registration of the contested mark, in particular by selling that mark and mark No 17225939 to the intervener for a disproportionate price.

78 It is apparent from paragraphs 27 to 29 above that account must be taken of the applicant’s intention at the time of filing the application for registration, namely 3 June 2015, and that that intention is a subjective factor which must be ascertained by reference to the objective circumstances of the particular case.

79 In that regard, the applicant cannot reasonably claim that his intention may not be established with certainty from an external point of view. Admittedly, this is a subjective reason, but that can be inferred from conduct that departs from principles recognised as being those related to ethical behaviour. Any other interpretation of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 would make it impossible to establish the existence of bad faith within the meaning of that provision.

80 Furthermore, as the applicant submits and as is apparent from paragraph 33 above, it was for the intervener to set out the facts enabling the finding that the applicant acted in bad faith when filing the application for registration of the contested mark. In the present case, it must be held that various factors capable of establishing that bad faith were indeed adduced by the intervener.

81 It is apparent from the overall analysis of the six factors on which the Board of Appeal relied that the applicant knew the intervener’s club and the sign used by the intervener, on the day on which the mark was filed, and that the activity of that club was publicised, which was also frequented by numerous celebrities. Furthermore, it is common ground that the sign constituting the contested mark and that used by the intervener were almost identical. In addition, the content of the various sales offers made it possible to make clear the applicant’s intention at the time of filing the application for registration of the contested mark and to identify aspects of undue pressure, in particular due to the unsolicited and repeated nature of those offers, the high prices charged, the unexplained increase in the sales price upon the involvement of a new investor in the intervener’s activities, the reference to short periods of validity of the offers and items already on sale experiencing success, specifically in Ibiza, where the intervener is established. Finally, evidence of a commercial activity consistent with honest commercial logic has not been adduced.

82 In the light of the foregoing, the use of the same stylisation for the signs at issue cannot be attributed to chance, since the applicant has, moreover, accepted that the sign constituting the contested mark was inspired by the sign used by the intervener in its business activities. Therefore, there are relevant and convergent factors enabling the conclusion that the intention of the applicant seeking registration of the contested mark at the time of filing of that application was to create a connection on the part of the public between the goods and services covered by that mark and the well-known club belonging to the intervener in order for the applicant to then monetise that mark (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 28 April 2021, France Agro v EUIPO – Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs), T‑311/20, not published, EU:T:2021:219, paragraph 33).

83 Accordingly, the Board of Appeal was able to deduce from the particular circumstances of the case that, by applying for registration of the contested trade mark, the commercial logic of the applicant seeking registration was to ‘free-ride’ on the intervener’s club’s reputation and take advantage of that reputation (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 14 May 2019, NEYMAR, T‑795/17, not published, EU:T:2019:329, paragraph 51), in particular by selling the contested mark to the intervener for a significant amount.

84 Therefore, the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that bad faith within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 had been determined.>>

Registrazione di marchio in malafede perchè sfruttante notorietà di precedente segno, però da tempo estinto? Un interessante caso (ceco)slovacco portato in UE

Trib. UE 06.07.2022, T.250/21, Zdut c. EUIPO, si esprime sul marchio denominativo NEHERA (per abbiglimento , tessuti etc.) registrato nonostante il nome fosse assai famoso nella ex Cecoslovacchia come marchio di impresa di inzio ‘900, poi estintosi.

Gli eredi dell’imprenditore omonimo non gradiscono e chiedono l’annullamento per deposito in malafede (art. 52.1.b reg. 207/2009)

A parte le considerazioni generali sull’istituto,. §§ 20-35, più interessante è -al solito- l’applicaizne al caso specifico, § 56 ss.

<< Orbene, un comportamento parassitario nei confronti della notorietà di un segno o di un nome, come quello menzionato dalla commissione di ricorso nella decisione impugnata al fine di fondare la constatazione della malafede del ricorrente, è possibile, in linea di principio, solo se tale segno o tale nome gode effettivamente e attualmente di una certa notorietà o di una certa celebrità (v., per analogia, sentenza del 3 settembre 2015, Iron & Smith, C‑125/14, EU:C:2015:539, punto 29).

58 In effetti, il giudice dell’Unione ha già constatato, nel caso di una persona che chiedeva la registrazione di un marchio dell’Unione europea, l’intenzione di trarre indebitamente vantaggio dalla notorietà residua di un marchio anteriore, anche quando quest’ultimo non era più utilizzato (sentenza dell’8 maggio 2014, Simca, T‑327/12, EU:T:2014:240), o dall’attuale celebrità del nome di una persona fisica (sentenza del 14 maggio 2019, NEYMAR, T‑795/17, non pubblicata, EU:T:2019:329), in ipotesi in cui tale notorietà residua o tale celebrità attuale era stata debitamente dimostrata. Per contro, esso ha constatato che non vi era usurpazione della notorietà di un termine rivendicato da un terzo e, quindi, non vi era malafede da parte del richiedente il marchio, quando tale termine non era né registrato, né utilizzato, né rinomato nell’Unione [v., in tal senso, sentenza del 29 novembre 2018, Khadi and Village Industries Commission/EUIPO – BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda), T‑683/17, non pubblicata, EU:T:2018:860, punti da 68 a 71].

59 In tali circostanze, in assenza di notorietà residua del vecchio marchio cecoslovacco e di celebrità attuale del nome Jan Nehera al momento del deposito della domanda di registrazione del marchio contestato, l’uso successivo da parte del ricorrente di quest’ultimo marchio non era, in linea di principio, idoneo a costituire un comportamento parassitario che rivelasse la malafede del ricorrente.

60 Tale conclusione non è rimessa in discussione dal fatto che il ricorrente fosse a conoscenza dell’esistenza e della notorietà passata del sig. Jan Nehera e del vecchio marchio cecoslovacco (v. precedenti punti 54 e 55). Infatti, la sola circostanza che il richiedente sappia o debba sapere che un terzo ha utilizzato, in passato, un marchio identico o simile al marchio richiesto non è sufficiente a provare l’esistenza della malafede del richiedente (v., in tal senso e per analogia, sentenze del 27 giugno 2013, Malaysia Dairy Industries, C‑320/12, EU:C:2013:435, punti 36 e 37 e giurisprudenza ivi citata, e del 29 novembre 2018, Khadi Ayurveda, T‑683/17, non pubblicata, EU:T:2018:860, punto 69)>>

Seguono poi altre cosnidrazioni sugli argiomenti <<diretti, in sostanza, a dimostrare l’intenzione di parassitismo e la malafede del ricorrente indipendentemente dall’esistenza di una notorietà residua del vecchio marchio cecoslovacco e del nome del sig. Jan Nehera.>>

Si bad che il pubblico aveva dimenticato il segno, § 66, e che è rimasto incerto processualmente se ci sia stato o no un tentativo di collegarsi indebitamente al vecchio marchio, § 68-69 (che però è dubbio assai inciderebbe sul marchio e non su concorenza sleale , pratiche scorrette , illecito aquiliano etc.);

Il giudizio rimane uguale: <<78 A tal riguardo è sufficiente constatare che, secondo la giurisprudenza citata al precedente punto 23, la nozione di malafede presuppone la presenza di una disposizione d’animo o di un’intenzione disonesta. Orbene, nel caso di specie, l’EUIPO e gli intervenienti non hanno dimostrato che il ricorrente fosse mosso da una disposizione d’animo o da un’intenzione disonesta al momento del deposito della domanda di registrazione del marchio contestato.

79 Da tutto quanto precede risulta che la commissione di ricorso ha ritenuto a torto che il ricorrente avesse intenzione di trarre indebitamente vantaggio dalla notorietà del sig. Jan Nehera e del vecchio marchio cecoslovacco concludendone che egli era in malafede al momento del deposito della domanda di registrazione del marchio contestato>>

La distinzione tra tributo ad un brand famoso e suo sfruttamento è sottile: anzi probabilmente non c’è e quindi sarà più o meno sempre sfruttamento.

Resta successivamente da vedere se questo costituisca sempre e comunque <registrazione in malafede>. Tema complesso, dovendosi capire in relazione a quale scenario vada stimato l’intralcio ad inziative imprednitoriali, posto dalla mala fede. Ad es. nel caso de quo potevano gli eredi vantare una riserva di registrazione (come il nostro art. 8.3 cod. propr. ind., ad es.) solo per essere parenti/discendenti (di più di una generazione …) di un soggetto assai noto? Cioè potevano vantare un right of publicity ricevuto per via ereditaria (successione legittima o magari anche testamentaria, chissà), al pari di qualunque diritto su cose? Temi interessanti e difficili: potendosi ad es. dire che nel caso specifico la notorietà fosse stata acquisita primariamente come imprenditore e non potesse dunque essere invocato il cit. art. 8.3 cpi.

Altra decsione UE sul deposito di marchio in malafede (caso “Agate”)

Trib. UE 29.09.2021, T-592/20, Universe Agro c. EUIPO, decide una lite su deposito di marchio in malafedee ex art. 59.1.b reg. 2017/1001.

Il marchio denominativo <Agate> era stato chiesto in registrazione in sede europea e concesso per pneumatici

Ma ci fu opposizione da titolare cinese di marchio complesso confondibile che da tempo vendeva in Romania: egli provò di essere stato solo anticipato su un segno che lui usava da tempo ma che non aveva ancora registrato.

Il marchio viene annullato per riscontro di malafede al momento del deposito. Segue conferma in sede di reclamo amministrativo.

Ora anche il primo grado giudiziale conferma le decisioni ammnisitrative.

La sentenza non offre spunti interssanti sotto il profilo giuridico astratto, ma solo sotto quello fattual probatorio. Possono invece essere di qualche interesse infatti le insidiose eccezioni dedotte dal depositante bulgaro per negare la propria malafede.,

Ancora sul deposito di marchio in mala fede

Il Trib. UE 09.06.2021, T-396/20, Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport), c. EUIPO-Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur di Nizza, interviene sul tema, che sta diventando sempre pi frequententemente occasione di liti.

Si veda nella sentenza il marchio figurativo chiesto in registrazione.

L’opposizione fu basata sull’art. 52 reg. 207/2009 per cui: <<Su domanda presentata all’Ufficio o su domanda riconvenzionale in un’azione per contraffazione, il marchio UE è dichiarato nullo allorché:a) …; b) al momento del deposito della domanda di marchio il richiedente ha agito in malafede.>>

La sentenza non contiene particolari elaborazioni teoriche ma interessanti elementi fattuali, importanti per l’operatore.

In generale ricorda che <<31 When interpreting the concept of bad faith, the Court of Justice has found previously that while, in accordance with its usual meaning in everyday language, bad faith presupposed the presence of a dishonest state of mind or intention, that concept had moreover to be understood in the context of trade mark law, which was that of the course of trade. In that regard, it held that Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2014 L 11, p. 1) and Regulations No 207/2009 and 2017/1001, which were adopted subsequently, had the same objective, namely the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The rules on the EU trade mark are aimed, in particular, at contributing to the system of undistorted competition in the European Union, in which each undertaking must, in order to attract and retain customers by the quality of its goods or services, be able to have registered as trade marks signs which enable the consumer, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish those goods or services from others which have a different origin (see judgment of 12 September 2019, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO, C‑104/18 P, EU:C:2019:724, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

32 The Court of Justice inferred from this that the absolute ground for invalidity referred to in Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 applied where it was apparent from relevant and consistent indicia that the proprietor of an EU trade mark had filed the application for registration of that mark not with the aim of engaging fairly in competition but with the intention of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties, or with the intention of obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark, in particular the essential function of indicating origin recalled in paragraph 31 above (see judgment of 12 September 2019, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO, C‑104/18 P, EU:C:2019:724, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

33 The Court of Justice has also held that the intention of a trade mark applicant is a subjective factor which, however, had to be determined objectively by EUIPO. Consequently, any claim of bad faith must be the subject of an overall assessment, taking into account all the factual circumstances relevant to the particular case. It is only in that manner that a claim of bad faith can be assessed objectively (see judgment of 12 September 2019, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO, C‑104/18 P, EU:C:2019:724, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).>>

L?ufficio aveva rigettato l’opposizione di malafede <<on the basis of the documents in the file, that (i) prior to the date on which the contested mark was filed, namely 22 February 2017, there was no airport called Riviera Airport in Italy, (ii) there was no evidence showing that an air transport service or any other commercially relevant service had actually been provided in that airport under the sign Riviera Airport and (iii) the activities carried out between September 2016 and July 2017 showed only the applicant’s preparatory activities with a view to potentially relaunching Albenga Airport under the name Riviera Airport. In that regard, it should be noted that all the commercial documents, such as invoices or communications with the public, which the applicant submitted are associated either with the names Aeroporto Clemente Panero or Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga, or with the abbreviation AVA, and that it added the element ‘riviera airport spa’ to its company name only in July 2017, namely after initiating opposition proceedings. The Board of Appeal was also unable to find that either an article from the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia or email addresses had probative value since the content of the former could have been created or altered by anyone and there was no proof that the latter had been used in the context of a commercial or professional activity. The only document in the file in which the name Riviera Airport appears is an internal document relating to a modernisation plan referring to the airport with the names above; that plan was not communicated externally. On the basis of the evidence produced by the applicant, the Board of Appeal was able to find, correctly, that the applicant had not proved earlier use of the name Riviera Airport and that its mere plan to use that name in the future was not in itself conclusive for a presumption of bad faith>>, §§ 38-39.

Nè è stata ravvisata la mala fede per l’allegata violazione di un rapporto previo fiduciario, che non è stato accertato: << 43 In that regard, it must be held that the Board of Appeal did examine other factual circumstances. As a second step, the Board of Appeal focused its examination on the applicant’s arguments relating to the alleged fiduciary relationship between the applicant and the intervener. 44 In that context, according to the applicant, the existence of an earlier cooperation agreement between the applicant and a subsidiary of the intervener establishes that there had been a business and fiduciary relationship between the parties, in the context of which the ‘Riviera Airport Project’ design master plan was sent and a meeting was held, and, as a consequence, the intervener should have refrained from applying to register the contested mark. 45 As the Board of Appeal correctly explained in paragraphs 43 to 54 of the contested decision, neither the contact which was made in February 2017 between the applicant and the intervener nor an investment agreement allow it to be concluded that there was a fiduciary relationship which required the intervener to refrain from applying to register the contested mark or, consequently, that the latter acted in bad faith. 46 As regards the contact which was made in February 2017, it must be noted that that contact is based on the letter of 20 February 2017, sent by A (director and new owner of the applicant) to B (CEO of Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur), in which A wrote that the airport Villanova of Albenga had been privatised and that he was the new owner of it. The following day, A also sent two copies of a design master plan for the ‘Riviera Airport’ project and expressed his hope of having a productive meeting on Friday 24 February. It is apparent from a cease-and-desist letter of 19 May 2017 sent by the intervener to the applicant that that meeting took place and that, during that meeting, the applicant sought the intervener’s consent to use the sign Riviera Airport, which the intervener categorically refused to give. 47 As regards the existence of an earlier cooperation agreement concluded between the applicant and a subsidiary of the intervener, it must be held, as the Board of Appeal found, that that agreement is irrelevant in so far as that agreement, which was entered into at the end of 2012 and the term of which ended in 2014, contains nothing capable of affecting the present case or the contested sign. It follows that there was no obligation on the intervener to refrain from applying to register the contested mark>>