Decisione istruttiva sul profilo probatorio della rinomanza dei marchi (il caso della vodka “Chopin”)

La 5 comm. ricorso EUIPO 13.02.2025, R 304/2024-5, Giossina v. Podlaska, (qui la pag. web dell’ufficio) utile ai pratici per la preprazione dell’istruttoria sulla rinomanza del marchio.

59  L’esistenza di una notorietà dev’essere valutata tenendo conto di tutti i fattori pertinenti del caso di specie, vale a dire, in particolare, la quota di mercato detenuta dal marchio, l’intensità, l’estensione geografica e la durata del suo uso, nonché l’importo speso dall’impresa per promuoverlo (05/10/2022, T 711/20-, CMS Italy (fig.)/PUMA (fig.) et al., EU:T:2022:604, § 82; 02/10/2015, T-624/13, Darjeeling/DARJEELING et al., EU:T:2015:743, § 75; 27/09/2012, T-373/09, Emidio Tucci, EU:T:2012:500, § 58; 10/05/2007, T-47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 46; 06/02/2007, T-477/04, TDK, EU:T:2007:35, § 48; 14/09/1999, 375/97-, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 26, 27).
60 Per quanto riguarda la qualità delle prove della notorietà, occorre che esso sia chiaro, preciso e convincente, nel senso che il titolare del marchio anteriore deve dimostrare tutti i fatti necessari per concludere con certezza che il suo marchio è conosciuto da una parte significativa del pubblico interessato. La notorietà del marchio anteriore deve essere sufficientemente dimostrata e non semplicemente presunta. Risulta altresì dalla giurisprudenza che la prova della notorietà deve includere elementi oggettivi adeguatamente documentati o verificabili per consentire di valutare i fattori pertinenti
(05/10/2022, T 711/20-, CMS Italy (fig.)/PUMA (fig.) et al., EU:T:2022:604, § 84).
61 Nel caso di specie, la Divisione di Opposizione ha concluso che le prove presentate dall’opponente, considerate nel loro complesso, dimostrano che la registrazione del marchio dell’Unione europea anteriore godeva di notorietà, almeno sul mercato polacco, per vodka nella Classe 33.
62 L’opponente ha presentato due studi di mercato (Allegati 5 e 6) relativi alla conoscenza del marchio dei marchi Chopin dell’opponente in relazione alla vodka. Il primo studio di mercato è stato realizzato da Millward Brown (attualmente Kantar Millward Brown, una principale agenzia di ricerca globale) e il secondo da KPMG Sp. z o.o.
63 A seguito di questi studi, la conoscenza del marchio Chopin è riconosciuta dal 69 % del numero complessivo di intervistati, compreso il 80 % del pubblico principale (ossia i normali consumatori di vodka). Il 29 % degli intervistati ha sentito parlare di questo marchio di vodka per la prima volta più di 10 anni fa e il 45 % conosce il marchio da 3 a
10 anni. Il marchio Chopin è stato il marchio al premio polacco più indicato (conoscenza spontanea) della categoria delle bevande spiritose (32 % degli intervistati, prima di Belvedere, Wyborowa, Żubrówka e Sobieski vodkas).
64 Tali studi dimostrano che il marchio anteriore ha raggiunto un livello significativo di consapevolezza e conoscenza presso i consumatori in Polonia, in particolare quelli che consumano regolarmente bevande alcoliche come la vodka.
Si prega di notare che questa è una traduzione generata automaticamente fornita soltanto per scopi informativi. Non è possibile garantirne l’accuratezza o l’idoneità per specifici scopi.
65 Inoltre, l’opponente ha presentato nell’allegato n. 1 circa 180 fatture che dimostrano la vendita di migliaia di bottiglie di vodka in Polonia e in altri Stati membri, come nei Paesi Bassi, in Belgio, Germania, Lettonia, Lituania, Italia, Romania e Regno Unito. Tali fatture coprono un lungo periodo dal 2015 al 2022 che mostra un uso costante e molto frequente del marchio anteriore.
66 L’opponente è stato molto attivo nella promozione e nella pubblicità del marchio anteriore (Allegati 7 e 8). Ha presentato un’ampia selezione di immagini di prodotti promozionali in stand esclusivi presso negozi senza merci in aeroporti polacchi (datati 2015-2017, 2019-2020), eventi diversi (ad esempio la presentazione di McLaren presso lo Stadium nazionale polacco nel 2019 e la presentazione di Lamborghini a Varsavia nel 2021) e fiere (ad esempio Festival Wódki I Zakcontrollori ski 2017, 2018, 2019; JEDZ IJ Warszawo 2019). Nell’UE, l’opponente ha anche prodotto diverse immagini di eventi di sponsorizzazione e festival in cui sono stati promossi i prodotti “Chopin”, quali: Bar Convent Berlin (Germania) nel 2019, il Festival internazionale del Tribunale Cuisine
2018, Duty Free TFWA Cannes (Francia) 2018 e 2019.
67 Negli allegati 9 e 10, l’opponente ha incluso anche una grande varietà di articoli pubblicitari e di articoli di stampa datati 2015-2020, in riviste pubblicate in Polonia quali  gli Highneth 2015, Acqua Vitae 2016, Ereca 2017, Tendances & Emballages 2018, Born in Polonia catalogo 2018, 2019 e 2021 o online in un articolo Forbare dal titolo “How è troppo elevato per la vodka ultra luxury?” dal 24/07/2020; e l’articolo Parade titava “18 marchi Best vodka da laterare, sulle rocce o su un cocktail artigianale” del 03/01/2023.
La vodka Chopin è citata in relazione alla sua collaborazione con Vera Wang (designer).
68 Va sottolineato che la vodka Chopin è stata considerata il settimo marchio di lusso da KPMG il 23 marzo 2016 e anche il gennaio 2020 in un articolo online di “The spruce eats”, che è una pubblicazione online vincente a livello mondiale su una missione voltaad aiutare il pubblico a fare il loro meglio condividendo “i migliori” nelle ricette di cibo e bevande, la vodka Chopin è stata considerata il secondo marchio più popolare di vodka
premium.
69 L’opponente è anche molto attivo con il proprio marchio anteriore su social media e collabora anche a eventi cinematografici e musicali molto famosi, dove il marchio “Chopin” è stato ampiamente promosso (ad esempio, presso il Festival di Santa Barbara International Film Film, la fondazione Grammy, il premio Kirk Douglas Award, il premio internazionale Transatlantic Film e Music Award, con la partecipazione di storari cinematografici come Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, Penéning, 12).
70 Infine, l’opponente ha presentato una sentenza del Tribunale di Varsavia del 22/10/2020, nel caso XXII GWzt 21/20, che riguardava un procedimento per contraffazione in cui, tra l’altro, era in discussione il marchio anteriore (allegato 15).
71 In tale sentenza il tribunale polacco ha stabilito che il marchio anteriore godeva di notorietà e ha tenuto conto anche degli studi di mercato (Allegati 5 e 6) presentati anch’essi in tale procedimento. Ha affermato che la presenza nel mercato della vodka Chopin nel corso degli anni e le spese elevate per il marketing e le attività promozionali dimostrano la notorietà e l’elevata qualità del marchio anteriore. La produzione della vodka viene effettuata in piccole partite e il produttore controlla l’intero processo, compreso l’acquisto di materie prime. La vodka presenta un gusto eccezionale, ottenuto grazie alla ricetta e all’eccellente qualità degli ingredienti.
Si prega di notare che questa è una traduzione generata automaticamente fornita soltanto per scopi informativi. Non è possibile garantirne l’accuratezza o l’idoneità per specifici scopi.
72 Alla luce di quanto precede, la Commissione conferma le conclusioni della decisione impugnata in merito alla notorietà del marchio anteriore, che è presente nel mercato della vodka dall’inizio degli anni’ 1990 ed è stata utilizzata da allora in modo costante e molto frequente, come dimostrato dalle fatture che costituiscono semplicemente una selezione di tutti i volumi di vendita dei prodotti derivati dalla vodka sotto il marchio anteriore”

Sul marchio parodistico: torna al giudice di primo grado la lite Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels

Jocelyn Bosse in IPKat ci notizia della sentenza Distr. Arizona 23 gennaio 2025 n. Case 2:14-cv-02057-SMM , VIP products llc v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Incorporated, cui la causa era stat rimandata dalla Corte Suprema USA con la sua nota sentenza del 2023 (su cui v. mio post)

I marchi a paragone:

Secondo il giudice distrettuale non c’è confondibilità perchè la parodia è palese, però c’è danno alla rinomanza (infangamento, tarnishment).

Sorge un problema teorico: se la parodia è ammessa, reprimerla con il tarnishmnent è contraddittorio. Qualunque parodia ad attività commerciale ne può ridurre la capacità di generare proditti. Cioè la parodia è ammessa come difesa contro la privativa di marchio, purchè non ne leda in alcun modo la redditivita.   Il che è illogico, perchè di fatto rende inutilizzabile la difesa medesima.

In generale la parodia riposa su valori (democraticità, free speeech…) più importanti di quelli economici; solo che qui è azionata da un concorrente, quindi da chi agisce secondo logica pure economica.

L’eserczio di diritti fondamentali non è previsto espressamente come limite alla privativa (art. 14 reg. UE 1001 del 2017); ma cetamente va ammesso quantomeno per analogia iuris (se di dirittto europeo oppure italiano, è da vedere)

Il marchio può essere “rinomato” anche se per prodotti non di lusso e pure se non risulta evidente sul singolo prodotto

Spunti interessanti (il secondo soprattutto) a livello teorico anche se purtroppo solo accennati in Cass. sez. I, ord. 17/01/2025  n. 1.153, rel. Campese, nella lite Pasta Zara / Zara abbigliamento:

<<3.1. Invero, ribadito che il marchio notorio è tale in quanto conosciuto dalla generalità del pubblico e non è necessariamente legato alla distribuzione di prodotti di lusso o dai connotati di esclusività e raffinatezza, l’assunto della ricorrente secondo cui, sostanzialmente, l’utilizzazione del marchio “ZARA” non darebbe luogo ad alcun pregiudizio alla società controricorrente, né attribuirebbe alcun vantaggio alla ricorrente perché si tratterebbe di un marchio privo di prestigio, non persuade, né convince l’ulteriore argomentazione per cui, sui capi di abbigliamento di ZARA, il marchio non è evidente (cfr. amplius, pag. 13-14 del ricorso). Si tratta, infatti, di circostanza che, come condivisibilmente sostenuto dal Pubblico Ministero nelle sue conclusioni scritte, “è facilmente spiegabile con la scelta della società spagnola di operare la distribuzione dei propri prodotti in negozi monomarca e non costituisce quindi un’implicita ammissione di assenza di prestigio” >>.

Sulla confondibilità tra marchi all’Oktoberfest

Lite sui marchi evocanti l’Oktoberfest, decisa dal Board of Appeal EUIPO 11.12.2024, caso 1264/2024-2, FCRB IMPEX SRL v. ANDESHAUPTSTADT MÜNCHEN, correttamente decisa in base alla debolezza dell’anteriorità.

Marchi in lite:

marchio chiesto in registrazione
anteriorità azionata in opposizione

La opposition e il Board of appeal escludono il riscjhio di confuisione.

La parte finale della seconda:

<<54  A global assessment of a likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular, the similarity between the trade marks and between the goods or services. Accordingly, a greater degree of similarity between the goods/services may be offset by a lower degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 20; 11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24; 29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).
55 As a preliminary point, in accordance with the principle of the interdependence between the factors to be taken into consideration when examining the likelihood of confusion, it must be noted that the ratio legis of trade mark law is to strike a balance between the interest that the proprietor of a trade mark has in safeguarding its essential function, on the one hand, and the interests of other economic operators in having signs capable of denoting their products and services, on the other (18/01/2023, T-443/21, YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL (fig.) / yoga ALLIANCE (fig.), EU:T:2023:7, § 117 and the case-law cited).
56 It follows that excessive protection of marks consisting of elements that, as in the present case, have very weak distinctive character, if any, in relation to the goods or services at issue, could adversely affect the attainment of the objectives pursued by  trade mark law, if, in the context of the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the mere presence of such elements in the signs at issue led to a finding of a likelihood of confusion without taking into account the remainder of the specific factors in the present case (18/01/2023, T-443/21, YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL (fig.) / yoga ALLIANCE (fig.), EU:T:2023:7, § 118).
57 In that regard, where the earlier trade mark and the sign whose registration is sought coincide in an element that has a weak distinctive character with regard to the goods and services at issue, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR does not often lead to a finding that such likelihood exists (12/05/2021, T-70/20, MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS (fig.) / MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS (fig.), EU:T:2021:253, § 119 and the case-law cited).
58 In the present case, taking into account the above comparison of the signs and in particular the existence of the very weak common element ‘OKTOBER()FEST’ in both signs, the differences in the overall impression of the signs, especially the visually more striking and distinctive figurative element of the earlier mark (‘a flying beer mug’) and the figurative element in the contested sign, insofar as it will be seen as abstract, are such that the relevant public with an average level of attention will be able to make a clear distinction between the marks at issue. This applies notwithstanding the identity of the services at issue and the imperfect recollection of the public.
59 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the Opposition Division correctly concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public as regards the fact that the services may come from the same or economically linked undertakings.
60 Therefore, the appeal is dismissed>>

(notizia di Marcel Pemsel in IPKat, da cui il link ai marchi)

Keyword advertising e avvedutezza del consumatore medio online nel diritto dei marchi

L’appello del 9 circuito n. 23-16060 del 22.10.2024, Lerner&Rowe v. Brown Engstrand&Shely decide una lite per violazione di marchio tra due studi legali avvenuta tramite keyword advertising (k.a.).

Il Panel non affronta le legittimità di quest’ultimo strumento secondo la legge marchi, limitandosi a dire che non ricorre confondibilità tra gli esiti della ricerca Google e il nome/i segno dello studio attore.

Rigetta quindi la domanda.

E’ infatti assai  fiducioso sull’avvedutezza dell’utente medio di internet:

<<Google’s search engine is so ubiquitous that we can be confident that the reasonably prudent online shopper is familiar with its layout and function, knows that it orders results based on relevance to the search term, and understands that it produces sponsored links along with organic search results. Moreover, in this case, the relevant consumers specifically typed in “Lerner & Rowe” as a search term, suggesting that they would be even more discerning of the results they received. Therefore, because this case involves shopping on Google by using the precise trademark at issue, this factor weighs in favor of ALG.>>

E poi:

<The district court was correct to conclude that this is one of the rare trademark infringement cases susceptible to summary judgment. The generally sophisticated nature of online shoppers, the evidence demonstrating that there is not an appreciable number of consumers who would find ALG’s use of the mark confusing, and the clarity of Google’s search results pages, convince us that ALG’s use of the “Lerner & Rowe” mark is not likely to cause consumer confusion.>>.

Del che c’è da dubitare, come avverte Eric Goldman (dal cui blog prendo notizia della e link alla sentenza)

L’opinione concorrente di  J. Desai invece esamina se il k.a. costituisca “uso del marchio”. Ricorda un importante precedente del 2011 del 9 ciruito, che rispose in senso affermativo: ma ora intende rovesciarlo,  perchè non esatto.

<<Whether an action, like bidding
on keywords, that involves no display or presentation of a
mark whatsoever satisfies the “use in commerce” definition.
In other words, does a buyer of advertising keywords who
bids on certain terms and phrases “use” its competitor’s
mark when bidding on it?
In Network Automation, we answered, yes. 638 F.3d at
1144–45. But we provided no analysis to support this
holding, id. at 1145, and we relied on cases with
meaningfully different facts. >>

Chiede quindi un riesame della questione.

Nel keyword search advertisement il mero acquisto del nome altrui non è violazione di marchio

App. del 2 circuito 08.10.2024, 1-800 contacts inc. d. Jand inc. afferma quanto nel titolo.

<<As outlined above, three components to a search advertising campaign are
relevant for our analysis of whether 1-800 has sufficiently alleged trademark
infringement by Warby Parker: first, the defendant’s purchase of a competitor’s
marks as keywords; second, the ads placed on the search results page for the
competitor’s marks; and third, the defendant’s landing webpage to which its ads
are linked. Thus, the central question in this case is whether 1-800 has sufficiently alleged a likelihood of confusion arising from Warby Parker’s use of 1-800’s Marks (i.e., 1800 Contacts,” “1 800 Contacts,” “1800contacts.com,” and “1800contacts”) in the keyword bidding process, the search ads, and/or the linked landing webpage. (….)
Further, in the search advertising context, an alleged infringer’s
purchase of a keyword comprising a competitor’s trademark constitutes a “use in
commerce” of such trademark under the Lanham Act. See Rescuecom Corp., 562
F.3d at 127 (holding that complaint regarding Google’s AdWord’s
recommendation of plaintiff’s trademark to plaintiff’s competitors “adequately
plead[ed] a use in commerce” under the Lanham Act)
(…)
1-800 alleges that Warby Parker made an infringing use of 1-800’s Marks in
the first component of its search advertising campaign: the keyword purchase.
However, as described above, the mere act of purchasing a competitor’s
trademarks as keywords in the search advertising context does not constitute
trademark infringement or unfair competition. See id. at 130. Warby Parker’s
purchase of 1-800’s Marks, standing alone, does not infringe 1-800’s Marks because “a defendant must do more than use another’s mark in commerce to violate the Lanham Act.” Id. The statute requires a showing that the defendant’s use caused consumer confusion. (….)

we conclude that 1-800 has failed to sufficiently plead that Warby Parker’s advertising plan was likely to confuse consumers at any point in the sales process because 1-800 does not claim that Warby Parker actually used the former’s Marks other than by buying them as keywords in the search engine auctions, and such use alone does not create a likelihood of consumer confusion>>

analoga soluzione probabilmente anche in base al nostro art. 20.2 cpi.-

La sentenza poi passa ad esaminare la confondibilità delle “landing pages”, negandola.

(notizia e link da Eric Goldman blog)

Componente denominativa e figurativa nel giudizio di confondibilità tra marchi

Si considerino i seg. marchi a paragone:

Il Board of appeal EUIPO 5 agosto 2024 , case R 1839/2023-5, L’Oreal c. Guangzhou Ya Ti Ao Jia Cosmetics Co., Ltd, conferma che non c’è confondiiblità.

Nemmeno è riconosciuta la tutela allargata, § 86 ss., per assenza sia di reputation che di connessione/link tra i due segni.

Segnalazione e link da parte di Marcel Pemsel in IPKat

Tra i fattori da considerare nel giudizio di confondibilità c’è pure la rinomanza del marchio successivo

Anteriorità opposta:

Marchio denominativo cbiesto in registrazione: << CHIQUITA QUEEN >>.

Stessi prodotti : frutta fresca.

Ebbene, Trib. UE 29.05.2024, T-79/23, Chiquita Brands v. EUIPO-Jara 2000, annullando l’appello ammnistrativo, esclude il rischio di confondibilità.

Qui interessa il passaggio dove include la rinomanza del secondo marcbio (di parte di esso: di CHIQUITA) tra i fattori da conteggiare per il giudizio di confondibilità.

<<46  In that regard, EUIPO’s argument that the reputation of the mark applied for, or of its distinct elements, is irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the relative ground for refusal, referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, must be rejected.

47 It is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, the factor based on the distinctive character of the earlier mark, which is linked to the protection granted to such a mark and which is to be taken into consideration in the context of the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion and, on the other, the distinctive character which an element of a composite mark may have, which is linked to its ability to dominate the overall impression produced by that mark and which must be examined from the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (see, to that effect, order of 27 April 2006, L’Oréal v OHIM, C‑235/05 P, not published, EU:C:2006:271, paragraph 43, and judgment of 25 March 2010, Nestlé v OHIM – Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe), T‑5/08 to T‑7/08, EU:T:2010:123, paragraph 65).

48 Thus, in the present case, since it is not disputed that the mark CHIQUITA enjoys a reputation in the European Union for some fresh fruits, it is possible to take into account, at the stage of the assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue, that reputation as a relevant factor for assessing the distinctive character of the element ‘chiquita’ appearing in the sign CHIQUITA QUEEN.

49 Furthermore, since the examination of the distinctive character of the elements of a sign cannot be confused with the examination of the distinctive character of the earlier mark carried out as part of the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the case-law referred to in paragraph 28 of the contested decision, as well as that relied on in EUIPO’s response, which refers to the reputation of the earlier mark under the protection granted to the latter in the context of the assessment of the overall risk confusion, is irrelevant.

50 It follows that the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment in concluding that the term ‘chiquita’, appearing in the sign of the mark applied for, had weak distinctive character>>.

Deicisione probabilmente esatta ma che richiederebbe un esame approfondito, data la non banale questione teorica sottostante.

Marcel Pemsel  in IPKat, che dà notizia della sentenza, sostanzialmente concorda, pur evidenziando contrasti con giurisprudenza precedente.

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

Istruzioni sulla prova della rinomanza dei marchi dal Tribunale UE (che viene normalmente acquisita e persa con gradualità)

Trib. UE 24.04.2024, T-157/23, Kneipp GmbH c. EUIPO-Patou:

<<Whether the earlier mark has a reputation and the burden of proof in relation to that reputation

19 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, in order to satisfy the requirement of reputation, a mark must be known to a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark. In examining that condition, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, in particular the market share held by the earlier mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it. There is, however, no requirement for that mark to be known by a given percentage of the relevant public or for its reputation to cover all the territory concerned, so long as that reputation exists in a substantial part of that territory (see judgment of 12 February 2015, Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM – Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO QM), T‑76/13, not published, EU:T:2015:94, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited).

20 However, the above list being merely illustrative, it cannot be required that proof of the reputation of a mark pertains to all those elements (see judgment of 26 June 2019, Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO – Play Hawkers (HAWKERS), T‑651/18, not published, EU:T:2019:444, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

21 Furthermore, an overall assessment of the evidence adduced by the proprietor of the earlier mark must be carried out in order to establish whether that mark has a reputation (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 May 2012, Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM, C‑100/11 P, EU:C:2012:285, paragraph 72). An accumulation of items of evidence may allow the necessary facts to be established, even though each of those items of evidence, taken individually, may be insufficient to constitute proof of the accuracy of those facts (see judgment of 26 June 2019, HAWKERS, T‑651/18, not published, EU:T:2019:444, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).

22 Next, it should be noted that the reputation of an earlier mark must be established as at the filing date of the application for registration of the mark applied for (judgment of 5 October 2020, Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal), T‑51/19, not published, EU:T:2020:468, paragraph 112). Documents bearing a date after that date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date. It cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after that date may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date (see judgment of 16 October 2018, VF International v EUIPO – Virmani (ANOKHI), T‑548/17, not published, EU:T:2018:686, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited; see also, by analogy, order of 27 January 2004, La Mer Technology, C‑259/02, EU:C:2004:50, paragraph 31).

23 In the present case, the reputation of the earlier mark had to be established as at 29 November 2019, the date on which the application for registration of the mark applied for was filed. The Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 46 of the contested decision, that, as a whole, the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO demonstrated convincingly that the earlier mark enjoyed a strong reputation, at least in France, which constitutes a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, in respect of perfumery and fragrances in Class 3 for which, inter alia, the earlier mark was registered.

24 In particular, it should be noted that, in order to find that the reputation of the earlier mark had been established, the Board of Appeal relied on the evidence referred to in paragraph 6 of the contested decision, namely, a statement signed by a representative of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, various copies of licence agreements or agreements conferring rights in respect of a trade mark JOY between that party and third parties, images of products, several extracts from websites of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and third parties, a large number of articles and press cuttings, extracts from books, advertisements, numerous invoices and extracts from ‘tweets’.

25 In the first place, it is necessary to examine the applicant’s argument that the documents produced by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, the existence of which is not disputed, do not provide evidence of the reputation of the earlier mark in a significant part of the relevant territory in the absence, in particular, of information concerning the market share of the earlier mark.

26 In that regard, as a preliminary point, it is necessary to reject the applicant’s arguments suggesting that the evidence intended to prove the reputation of the earlier mark in Member States other than the French Republic is irrelevant. While it is true that the Board of Appeal found that the earlier mark had a reputation ‘at least in France’ and that that State constituted a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, that does not mean that the evidence relating to other Member States is irrelevant. On the contrary, the latter evidence further supports the Board of Appeal’s finding, by demonstrating in particular the geographical scope of the earlier mark’s reputation, and must therefore be taken into consideration.

27 First, it should be noted that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO produced (i) numerous online articles (exhibit 7) showing that the perfume Joy was voted, in 2000, ‘Scent of the Century’ by the UK FiFi Awards, which is described as ‘perfume’s ultimate accolade’, and (ii) a screenshot of the Fragrance Foundation’s website (exhibit 6), referring to the listing of the perfume Joy on the ‘Hall of Fame’ of that foundation in 1990. As noted by the Board of Appeal, those awards are prestigious awards, which involve both longstanding use of the earlier mark and recognition of that mark by the relevant public.

28 Second, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO produced various extracts from books, articles and press cuttings (exhibits 4, 5, 12 and Annex 2) showing, inter alia, the use of the earlier mark for perfumes and fragrances and attesting that a significant part of the relevant public, in particular in France, knew the perfume Joy. The numerous extracts from articles, the date and place of publication of which can for the most part be identified, relate in particular to the years 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 and were published in several Member States, namely, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Italy, Portugal and, mainly, France, in fashion and beauty magazines of national or international importance, such as Elle, Grazia, Gala or Vogue. Several articles, dated from 2015 to 2017, describe the perfume Joy as the ‘second best-selling perfume of all time’, ‘one of the most popular and successful fragrances in the world’, ‘a strong rival to the number one best-selling fragrance of all time’. Lastly, several books on perfumery deal with the perfume Joy, listing it as one of ‘the five greatest perfumes in the world’, or as one of the ‘111 perfumes you must smell before you die’ or describing it as ‘one of the greatest floral perfumes ever created’. Finally, a selection of ‘tweets’ dated from the period between 2013 and 2015 (exhibit 14) demonstrates the social media presence of the earlier mark.

29 Third, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO produced 27 invoices (exhibit 11) corresponding to advertising campaigns, which it carried out in 2013, 2014 and 2018, not only in the press, but also on television at a significant cost, in order to promote the earlier mark.

30 Fourth, the abovementioned factors are supported by a large number of invoices (exhibit 16) relating to sales involving several thousand products covered by the earlier mark, in an amount of tens of thousands of euro, to various distributors in several Member States, namely, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and Romania, for the years 2013 to 2018.

31 In the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 20 and 21 above, it follows from the foregoing that, assessed as a whole, that evidence establishes that the earlier mark has a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, in particular in France, as regards perfumery and fragrances in Class 3.

32 The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO made significant efforts and investments in order to promote the earlier mark among the general public and in particular among the French general public. Those efforts took the form of significant advertising campaigns, a media presence in newspapers and magazines aimed at the general public and widely distributed within the European Union. Furthermore, the sales invoices submitted which related mainly to sales of perfumes and ‘eaux de parfums’ support the abovementioned factors demonstrating, inter alia, the wide geographical coverage of the earlier mark on that territory and a constant effort on the part of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to maintain its market share, at least until 2018.

33 Those documents, as well as the prestigious awards won by the perfume Joy, make it possible to establish that the earlier mark is widely known by the general public, in relation to the goods which it designates, in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, even though those awards date back several years and sales figures fell between 2013 and 2018. In the latter regard, it should be noted that, in any event, the earlier mark enjoyed a high degree of reputation in the past, which, even if it were to be assumed that it may have diminished over the years, still survived at the date of filing the application for registration of the mark applied for in 2019; accordingly, a certain ‘surviving’ reputation remained at that date (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2014, Simca Europe v OHIM – PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca), T‑327/12, EU:T:2014:240, paragraphs 46, 49 and 52).

34 Thus, the applicant’s argument that a significant part of the relevant public are teenagers who were not born when the perfume Joy won those awards and that adults aged 18 to 29 were not aware of the historical events, such as the awards and mentions in books at the relevant time, is unfounded. As EUIPO correctly submits, those parts of the relevant public may become aware of the long-lasting reputation of the earlier mark, without necessarily being the witnesses of all the awards and public praise achieved by the earlier mark in the past, and may come into contact with that mark, by way of example, through digital advertising, billboards or the printed press. Moreover, the EU judicature has already held that it cannot be ruled out that a ‘historical’ mark may retain a certain ‘surviving’ reputation, including where that mark is no longer used (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2014, Simca, T‑327/12, EU:T:2014:240, paragraphs 46, 49 and 52).

35 Furthermore, such reasoning also applies to the applicant’s argument that a significant part of the relevant public does not frequent luxury retail outlets, with the result that it cannot know the perfume Joy which is sold only by selected and prominent luxury retailers. First, the public concerned acquires and retains knowledge of a mark in several ways, in particular by visiting in person retail outlets where the corresponding products are sold, but also by other means such as those described in paragraph 34 above. Second, even consumers in the general public who cannot afford to purchase luxury branded goods are often exposed to them and are familiar with them (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 October 2022, Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO – Wisniewski (Representation of a chequerboard pattern II), T‑275/21, not published, EU:T:2022:654, paragraph 47).

36 Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant claims, the fact that the market share held by the earlier mark has not been established by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO does not necessarily mean that the reputation of the earlier mark has not been established. First, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraphs 19 and 20 above, the list of factors to be taken into account in order to assess the reputation of an earlier mark is indicative and not mandatory, as all the relevant evidence in the case must be taken into account and, second, the detailed and verifiable evidence produced by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO is sufficient in itself to establish conclusively the reputation of the earlier mark for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 (see judgment of 14 September 2022, Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO – Save the Duck (ITINERANT), T‑417/21, not published, EU:T:2022:561, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited).

37 In the second place, the applicant also relies on the fact that the Board of Appeal assumed that the earlier mark had a reputation and wrongly stated that it was for the applicant to prove a drastic loss of reputation of the earlier mark between 2018 and 29 November 2019, the filing date of the mark applied for.

38 As recalled in the case-law cited in paragraph 22 above, it cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after the filing date of the application for registration of the mark at issue may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. The same reasoning applies to the loss of such a reputation, which is also, in general, lost gradually. The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date.

39 Thus, evidence which predates the filing date of the application for registration of the contested mark cannot be deprived of probative value on the sole ground that it bears a date which predates that filing date by five years (judgment of 5 October 2020, apiheal, T‑51/19, not published, EU:T:2020:468, paragraph 112).

40 It is also apparent from the case-law that, as regards the burden of proof in relation to reputation, it is borne by the proprietor of the earlier mark (see judgment of 5 October 2022, Puma v EUIPO – CMS (CMS Italy), T‑711/20, not published, EU:T:2022:604, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited).

41 In the present case, in paragraph 34 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, after recalling that the application for registration had been filed on 29 November 2019, emphasised that most of the evidence submitted related to the period between 2013 and 2017 and that some of that evidence dated back to 1990, 2000 or 2006; however, it noted that the evidence in fact contained indications concerning the continuous efforts of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to maintain its market share in 2018, before adding that ‘the loss of reputation rarely happens as a single occurrence but is rather a continuing process over a long period of time, as the reputation is usually built up over a period of years and cannot simply be switched on and off’ and that ‘in addition, such drastic loss of reputation for a short period of time would be up to the applicant to prove’.

42 Thus, contrary to what the applicant claims, that assessment does not constitute a reversal of the burden of proof and is consistent with the case-law cited in paragraphs 38 to 40 above. In the absence of concrete evidence showing that the reputation progressively acquired by the earlier mark over many years suddenly disappeared during the last year under examination, the Board of Appeal was entitled to conclude that the earlier mark still had a reputation on 29 November 2019, the relevant date (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 January 2004, Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission, C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P, EU:C:2004:6, paragraph 79).

43 Therefore, the first complaint of the single plea in law must be rejected>>.