Nozione di contraffazione: a) identità di beni o servizi

Perplessa decisione di assenza di confondibilità tra due marchi figurativi UE rappresentanti un leone

I marchi a paragone:

Qui sopra il marchio chiesto in registrazione e sub iudice

Qui sopra invece l’anteriorità oppostagli

Merceologicamente sovrapponibili quasi del tutto.

L’appello amminstrativo ravvisava confondibilità e accoglieva l’opposizione basata sull’anteriorità.

Il Tribunale 20.12.2023, T-564/22,. Pierre Balmain c. EUIPO-Story Time, invece, la esclude per la debolezza del marchio anteriore, annullando la decisione del Board of appeal.

Ecco la sintesi finale:

<<The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion

77 A global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered by those marks. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM – Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame and others), T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74).

78 Furthermore, the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark, which determines the scope of the protection conferred by that mark, is one of the relevant factors to be taken into account in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, with the result that marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of their recognition on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with less distinctive character (judgments of 11 November 1997, SABEL, C‑251/95, EU:C:1997:528, paragraph 24, and of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 18; see also judgment of 29 March 2023, Machková v EUIPO – Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP), T‑436/22, not published, EU:T:2023:167, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited). However, in the light of the interdependence between the factors to be taken into account, the existence of a likelihood of confusion cannot automatically be ruled out where the distinctive character of the earlier mark is weak (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 March 2020, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO, C‑766/18 P, EU:C:2020:170, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited).

79 In practice, where the earlier mark and the mark applied for coincide in an element that is weakly distinctive with regard to the goods or services at issue, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion does not often lead to a finding that such a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, exists (judgments of 12 June 2019, Hansson, C‑705/17, EU:C:2019:481, paragraph 55; of 18 June 2020, Primart v EUIPO, C‑702/18 P, EU:C:2020:489, paragraph 53; and of 18 January 2023, YAplus DBA Yoga Alliance v EUIPO – Vidyanand (YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL), T‑443/21, not published, EU:T:2023:7, paragraph 121). Where the elements of similarity between two signs at issue arise from the fact that they have a component with a low degree of inherent distinctiveness in common, the impact of such elements of similarity on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion is itself low (see judgments of 20 September 2018, Kwizda Holding v EUIPO – Dermapharm (UROAKUT), T‑266/17, EU:T:2018:569, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited, and of 20 January 2021, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO – M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI), T‑328/17 RENV, not published, EU:T:2021:16, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).

80 In paragraphs 45 to 50 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that, in the light of the identity or various degrees of similarity, from low to high, of the goods at issue, the average degree of visual similarity and conceptual identity between the marks at issue and the average degree of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the relevant public, the level of attention of which varied from average to high, was likely to believe that the goods covered by those marks came from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. It added, in paragraph 52 of that decision, that its assessment would not have been different if it had found that the figurative element representing a lion’s head in the earlier mark, or even that mark taken as a whole, had only a low degree of inherent distinctiveness, in the light of the dominant nature of that element in that mark and the interdependence between the various factors to be taken into account in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. It took the view that those assessments were not contrary, in the circumstances of the case, to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court.

81 By its fourth complaint, the applicant disputes, in essence, the Board of Appeal’s assessment that there is a likelihood of confusion in the present case. It submits that the marks at issue, although they both consist of the representation of the same concept, namely a lion’s head, create a different overall impression in the mind of the relevant public. In that regard, it relies on the fact that the representation of such a concept is banal and commonplace in the fashion sector and that the earlier mark has only a low degree of inherent distinctiveness, which, in combination with the other factors in the present case, should have led the Board of Appeal to rule out the existence of a likelihood of confusion.

82 EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments. However, in the alternative, should the Court take the view that the earlier mark has a low degree of inherent distinctiveness, it states, in essence, that it endorses the applicant’s claim for annulment on the basis of the single plea in law relied on by the applicant, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court which ensures that marks with a low degree of inherent distinctiveness are not overprotected (see paragraph 79 above).

83 In that regard, it must, first, be borne in mind that the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment in finding that the earlier mark had an average degree of inherent distinctiveness, whereas that degree of inherent distinctiveness could only be categorised as low (see paragraph 75 above).

84 As regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal gave undue importance, in the contested decision, to the conceptual identity between the marks at issue in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, the purchase of goods in Classes 14 and 25 is based, in principle, particularly on their visual aspect. Clothing and clothing accessories, the purpose of which is to embellish the appearance of the human body, are generally marketed in ‘bricks and mortor’ shops or online shops, as the case may be with the help of sales assistants or advisers and, in the light of those particular marketing conditions, the consumer’s choice is mainly made by looking at them. Consequently, the marks covering those goods will normally be perceived visually prior to or at the time of purchase, with the result that the visual aspect is of greater importance in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2011, IIC v OHIM – McKenzie (McKENZIE), T‑502/07, not published, EU:T:2011:223, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

85 In the present case, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, the Board of Appeal, by finding that there was a higher than average degree of overall similarity between the marks at issue, attached more importance, in paragraph 49 of the contested decision, to the conceptual comparison of those marks than to the visual comparison, in particular in so far as it found that the differences in the stylisation of the marks were of limited importance in the overall impression created by those marks and therefore did not have sufficient impact to assist consumers in decisively distinguishing between the marks.

86 In so doing, it attached too much importance to the conceptual identity between the marks at issue, since, first, and as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 84 above, the choice of the goods at issue is based mainly on their visual aspect and, secondly, the concept represented in the marks at issue, namely a lion’s head, is used in a banal and commonplace way in the commercial presentation or the decoration of goods in the fashion sector.

87 Consequently, the second part of the second complaint must be upheld and the examination of the present action must be continued by taking into account the error of assessment thus noted.

88 In the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 78 and 79 above and the finding, made in paragraphs 50 and 51 above, that the representation of a lion’s head is a banal and commonplace decorative motif in the fashion sector, in which consumers are regularly faced with such a motif in the commercial presentation or the decoration of the goods, with the result that that motif has lost its capacity to identify the commercial origin of those goods, it must be held that, even though the marks at issue are conceptually identical, that can be of only limited importance in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, since the concept in common to which those marks refer is only weakly distinctive in relation to the goods at issue and can therefore contribute only to a very limited extent towards the function of a mark, which is to identify the origin of those goods and to distinguish them from those with a different origin (see paragraphs 47 and 52 above).

89 In view of the weak distinctive character of the concept which is common to the marks at issue and the weak distinctive character of the earlier mark, considered as a whole, the fact that the marks at issue are visually similar to an average degree was not sufficient to enable the Board of Appeal to find, in the contested decision, that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, even if the goods at issue were identical.

90 Consequently, the applicant’s fourth complaint must be upheld, inasmuch as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

91 In view of all of the foregoing considerations, the single plea put forward by the applicant must be upheld, in so far as it is based on the third complaint (see paragraph 76 above), on the second part of the second complaint (see paragraph 87 above) and on the fourth complaint (see paragraph 90 above) and the contested decision must therefore be annulled in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001>>.

Sono perplesso sia sulla banalità del segno anteriore, che sulla scarsa somiglianza tra i due segni: quindi complessivcamente pure sul giudizio del Tribunale.

(segnalazione di Anna Maria Stein in IPKat)

La confondibilità dei marchi nel caso Jagermeister

Il secondo non è vero che sia dissimilar dal primo: è similar, anche se solo in parte.

Si noti l’evidente tentatico del secondo di porre una netta differenza nel nome, la cui rilevanza è duplicemente notevole all’interno di ciascun marchio: sia perchè il nome prevale sul disegno nella percezione cnsumeristica (lo stesso BoA lo ricorda) sia perchè è scritto assai ingrande nel caso specifico.

Quindi il rigetto dell’opposizione era ingiustificato e la procedura torna alla Opposition Division per vedere se ciò basta per un giudizio di confondibilità (essenzialmente data la rinomanza dell’anteriorità: <<It must be borne in mind, in particular, that, depending on the degree of recognition of the earlier trade mark, even a low degree of similarity between the signs may be sufficientfor the assumption of a link within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR>>, § 25)

Così il 1 Board of appeal dell’ EUipo 20 giuigno 2023In Case R 1952/2022-1Mast-Jägermeister SE c. Tin Kakuszi (ungheria) (v pag. web euipo e accouint del fascicolo nel database ove trovi trad. automat. dall’ioriginale tedesco)

<<18. The earlier figurative mark likewise consists of a rectangular shape which resembles a-bottle label. On a dark-green background there is a white rectangle bordered by a green line followed by a white line. There is a horizontal banderolein orange in the middle of the Zei chens, which contains the text ‘Jägermeister’ in black stylised letters. Underneath it is the word element ‘SELECTED 56 BOTANICALS’ in considerably smaller lettering together with further details, which are barely legible on account of their even smaller font. Above the orange stripred is a white and golden green circle which is decorated with golden-coloured leaves on its underside. The stylised head of a stag with antlers in a jet-circle is depicted in the green circle. Above and framed by the anchor is a circle in a lighter green with a white Latin cross. For the above reasons, the most distinctive element of the earlier sign is the word element ‘Jägermeister’. Nevertheless, the brown targeted will not-neglect the graphic design as a whole and in particular the representation of a stag’s head on a green circle with a cross and the green and orange colour schema in the overall impression of the earlier trade mark.
19. Despite the differences that exist, in particular the differences in the most distinctive word components ‘ST. Joseph’ and ‘Jägermeister’ and in terms of the figurative elements (head of a man in contrast to the head of a deer), the opposing signs have a low degree of visual similarity, as theirgraphic arrangement is very similar overall. The signs are identical in terms of their colour schema (green, white, gold and orange/red), their basic rectangular shape, their construction and their essential graphic elements and their arrangement to one another (circular green element with a portraitsimilar strip above an orange-coloured/red banderole).
20. Both the earlier sign and the central left-hand part of the sign applied for consist of an inner (dark) white rectangle which is firstly bordered by a green, then a dark-green white line and then a dark green line. Both signs contain a red or orange band positioned in the centre with a black lettering above which a dark-and-white and golden green circle with a gold floral decoration is attached. In the dark green circle, there is in each case a stylised front view of a head (by a man in the contested sign and a stag in the earlier sign), which is surrounded by a jet circle in each case.
21. The signs under comparison therefore have a low degree of visual similarity.
22. The signs are aurally dissimilar, as the most distinctive word elements ‘ST. Joseph’ of the contested sign and ‘Jägermeister’ of the earlier sign un are pronounced differently-depending onthe different relevant languages.
23. The signs are conceptually dissimilar. Some of the consumers will understand the word element ‘ST. Joseph’ of the contested sign as a reference to the naked Josef. The word-element ‘Jägermeister’ of the earlier sign as a whole has no meaning. Nevertheless, the German-speaking consumer in any case immediately recognises therein thefact that the terms ‘Jäger’ and ‘Meister’ are combined, and therefore a meaning that differs from ‘ST. Joseph’. Furthermore, for all the consumers targeted, the signs differ in the meaning of the respective figurative elements, namely the depiction of a head of a man in the application, in contrast to the depiction of a head of a deer in the earlier trade mark.
24. Overall, the signs under comparison therefore have a low degree of similarity.
25. The Opposition Division considered the signs to be dissimilar and therefore, from their point of view, did not examine the further requirements ofthe asserted opposition. However, since, as stated above, the signs have a low degree of visual similarity, this must be remedied. It must be borne in mind, in particular, that, depending on the degree of recognition of the earlier trade mark, even a low degree of similarity between the signs may be sufficientfor the assumption of a link within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR (-16/01/2018, 398/16, COFFEE ROCKS (fig.)/STARBUCKS COFFEE (fig.) et al., EU:T:2018:4, § 78)>>.

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.

Il Tribunale UE sul giudizio di confondibilità tra marchi (sul caso Uniskin)

Si consideri:

marchio chiesto in registrazionenonchè:

per prodotti/servizi pazialmente affini

Ebbene, Trib. UE 08.02.2023, T-787/21, Uniskin Aps c. EUIPO-Unicskin, conferma le decisioni amministrative per cui c’è rischi odi confusione.

<< It must be borne in mind that a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM – Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame and others), T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74). The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion and marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (judgment of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 18).

76 In the present case, it must be pointed out that, as has been held in paragraphs 22, 28, 33 and 34 above, the Board of Appeal was right in finding that the goods and services at issue were, in part, identical and, in part, similar. As has been stated in paragraphs 52 and 58 above, the Board of Appeal also found, without making any error of assessment, that the signs at issue were visually similar to an average degree and phonetically similar to a high degree. As regards the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue, as has been held in paragraph 67 above, that comparison is, for part of the relevant public, neutral, whereas, for another part of that public, those signs are conceptually similar to an average degree. In the light of the fact that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal and the relevant public’s level of attention varies from average to high, and in the light of the interdependence between the similarity of the goods and services and the similarity of the marks, it must be held, in the context of a global assessment, that the Board of Appeal was right in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion.

77 In view of all of the foregoing considerations, the single plea must be rejected and, as a result, the action must be dismissed in its entirety>>.

Insufficiente affinità merceologica tra abbigliamento ed orologi di lusso: non raggiuntra la prova dell’abuso di notorietà o del danno ad essa

Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-726/21, Rolex SA c. EUIPO-PWT A/S nell’opposizione di Rolex (alta orologeria) contro marchio simile per abbigliamento.

<< it has already been held that jewellery and watches, even precious stones, one the one hand, and items of clothing, on the other, could not be regarded as similar (see, to that effect, judgments of 24 March 2010, 2nine v OHIM – Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie), T‑364/08, not published, EU:T:2010:115, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited, and of 10 October 2018, Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO – A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882), T‑374/17, not published, EU:T:2018:669, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). (…)

In addition, it must be pointed out that the fact that the goods at issue may be sold in the same commercial establishments, such as department stores, is not particularly significant, since very different kinds of goods may be found in such shops, without consumers automatically believing that they have the same origin (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 July 2015, BH Stores v OHIM – Alex Toys (ALEX), T‑657/13, EU:T:2015:449, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited).>>, §§ 25 E 31.

Sullo sfruttamento della e/o sul danno alla rinomanza:

<< 42 In order to benefit from the protection introduced by the provisions of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the proprietor of the earlier mark must, first of all, adduce proof, either that the use of the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, or that it would be detrimental to that distinctive character or that repute (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 37).

43 In that regard, although the proprietor of the earlier trade mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present injury to its mark for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, it must, however, prove that there is a serious risk that such an injury will occur in the future (judgment of 4 March 2020, Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO, C‑155/18 P to C‑158/18 P, EU:C:2020:151, paragraph 75; see also, by analogy, judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 38).

44 The Board of Appeal noted that, in order to demonstrate the existence of one of the types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the applicant had not submitted observations to it, but that, before the Opposition Division, it had argued that the intervener could take unfair advantage of the degree of recognition of the earlier composite mark on account of the fact that the signs at issue were almost identical and the immense reputation acquired by the earlier marks, which allegedly convey images of prestige, luxury and an active lifestyle. It found that, by those arguments, the applicant had in fact merely referred to the wording of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, without submitting any coherent arguments as to why one of such injuries would occur. The Board of Appeal inferred from this that no injury referred to in that provision was established>>.

Marchi rinomati, scissioni aziendali e liti tra familiari

La corte di appello di Venezia nel 2017 aveva giudicato la lite tra esponenti della nota famiglia di ristoratori Cipriani intorno a marchi denominativi contenenti il detto cognome (APP. Venezia 2798/2017 del 30.11.2017, rel. Bazzo).

Non si ripercorrono qui le complesse vicende fattuali. Solo si riporta il passaggio ove si dice che la fama della persona e quindi l’uso del proprio nome non può andare ad incidere su marchi anteriori: la tutela civile del nome è altro dalla tutela del suo valore commerciale. Si tratta di tema spesso ricorrente per cui vale la pena di leggere le analitiche considerazione della Corte:

<<Ciò premesso, va rilevato che una volta avvenuta la scissione (vuoi a seguito dell’accordo del 1967, vuoi per effetto di vicende successive) tra la figura di Giuseppe Cipriani senior ed i segni “Cipriani”, ed “Hotel Cipriani” – il primo concesso su domanda risalente già al 1969 per le classi 43 (alberghi, ristoranti caffetteria), 35 (gestione d’alberghi) e 16 (stampati) – la notorietà del suddetto e del figlio Arrigo quali personaggi di rilievo (ed imprenditori di successo grazie alla fama dell’Harry’s Bar) non potrà minimamente giustificare l’uso del patronimico in contrasto con la tutela da assicurare ai citati marchi (italiani e comunitari), divenuti celebri, e che in quanto tali non possono tollerare interferenze ed agganciamenti di sorta, apparendo anzi irrilevante quanto ipotizzato dal tribunale circa la preesistente notorietà delle iniziative economiche nel settore della ristorazione della famiglia Cipriani (asseritamente anteriore ai marchi registrati, in capo ad Hotel Cipriani); basti rimarcare che – come già detto – detta notorietà va semmai ricollegata all’esercizio del locale suindicato (Harry’s Bar), e si rivela a ben vedere ininfluente dopo che Giuseppe Cipriani senior (con l’adesione del figlio) ebbe a disporre del suo nome al momento dell’uscita dalla compagine dell’Hotel Cipriani lasciando che la Società conservasse in esclusiva il nome Cipriani (giusta l’accordo del 1967: si veda al riguardo la recente pronuncia resa in data 29 giugno 2017 dal Tribunale dell’Unione a definizione del ricorso di Arrigo Cipriani sulla richiesta di annullamento del marchio comunitario, depositata all’udienza di conclusioni, laddove la statuizione di accertamento resa dal Tribunale di Venezia in altra controversia tra Arrigo Cipriani e l’odierna appellante – con sentenza n. 1838/2011 – non appare sufficiente a consentire diverse conclusioni).
Si osserva dunque che la diversa interpretazione prospettata dal Tribunale (coerente con la possibilità per gli odierni appellati di svolgere attività di ristorazione sotto un segno distintivo incentrato sul loro nome anagrafico poiché di per sé non decettivo, sempre che proposto in dimensioni grafiche “contenute”), presuppone che sia del tutto conforme alla correttezza professionale l’uso del suddetto nome al fine di veicolare un valore di qualità e tradizione (asseritamente “sinonimo di qualità, eleganza e stile in tutto il mondo”, come puntualizzato nella memoria di costituzione degli appellati, ricollegabile in modo esplicito al segno de quo), ma ciò avverrebbe in concorrenza ed aggancio con i marchi celebri “Cipriani” ed “Hotel Cipriani”, con ogni conseguente rischio di confusione e di associazione tra le attività contraddistinte dai segni in conflitto, in presenza di attività imprenditoriali svolte nello stesso settore o comunque in settori affini.>>

Poi così prosegue la Corte: <<Né risulta decisiva in contrario la sottolineata esigenza di comunicare al pubblico le competenze e professionalità acquisite, consentendo agli appellati di “firmare” in qualche modo le loro attività, dando loro una precisa impronta; i predetti a ben vedere non possono essere annoverati tra gli artisti o i “creatori” di moda, o “stilisti” che si affermino in attività artistiche o professionali che richiedano una puntuale informazione al pubblico della provenienza dell’attività creativa realizzata, appartenendo al mondo della ristorazione (per quanto di fascia alta) e provvedendo in detta veste ad aprire e gestire ristoranti nelle più disparate località, sulla base di personali scelte imprenditoriali, alle quali risultano non pertinenti i profili di “creatività” nel senso sopra indicato.
In definitiva, per quanto ogni valutazione concreta non sia stata resa agevole dalla scarsezza del materiale offerto in causa, gli argomenti addotti nell’impugnata sentenza per consentire l’utilizzo delle espressioni “by Arrigo Cipriani”, “by Giuseppe Cipriani”, “by famiglia Cipriani” e consimili (“managed by” o “directed by”), al fine di indicare la gestione di attività di ristorazione da parte delle persone delle persone individuate nelle stesse (o individuabili con esse), non si rivelano idonei a configurare l’asserita valenza descrittiva, ipotizzata sulla base di astratte (ed opinabili) considerazioni, a fronte di una indubbia valenza distintiva delle medesime, le quali – per loro natura – sono destinate (quali sinonimi di elevata ospitalità, convivialità e buon vivere) non certo a comunicare mere informazioni essenziali relative alla “specie, alla qualità, alla quantità, alla destinazione, al valore, alla provenienza geografica, all’epoca,,,” del servizio, bensì ad attirare l’attenzione dei potenziali clienti sul nome anagrafico sotto il quale il servizio è proposto e dunque sulla origine e sulla qualità dello stesso, in quanto tale in grado di connotarlo con il richiamo ad un patronimico divenuto famoso, poiché oggetto dei marchi celebri in legittima titolarità dell’appellante (nel settore alberghiero e della ristorazione).
In tal senso deve escludersi che l’utilizzo del patronimico Cipriani corrisponda ai principi di correttezza professionale ovvero alle consuetudini di lealtà in campo commerciale e industriale, tenuto conto dell’inevitabile rischio di aggancio e di confusione con i segni distintivi propri delle affini attività alberghiere e di ristorazione esercitate dalla società appellante mediante iniziative imprenditoriali sostenute da marchi celebri e tra l’altro rivolte alla medesima fascia alta di clientela.>>.

sul giudizio di contraffazione di marchio

Il Tribunale UE, T 56/20, 24.02.2021, Bezos Famuily Foudnation c. EUIPO-SNCF, porta altro materiale per la comprensione di come vada condotto il giudizio di contraffazione.

Diritto pertinent: reg. 2017/1001.

La fondazione aveva chiesto la registrazione di marchio denominativo VROOM in classe 9 per <<Computer software, namely a mobile application for providing information and learning and educational activities and games in the field of early child development and early childhood education’.>>

E’ fatta opposizione per anteriorità costituta da marchio denominativo POP & VROOM per classi 9 e 42.

La fase amminisrativa va male alla Fondazione.

le va male pure la fase giudiziale, davanti al Tribunale, che rigetta l’impugnaizone.

La sentenza contiene i soliti passaggi logico-giuridici per la conduzione del giudizio, che però è sempre utile ripassare.

V. spt. il § The likelihood of confusion , §§ 48 ss e l’eccezione della Fondazione di non essere concorrente dell’opponente al momento del deposito. Giustamente il T. ricorda che potrà esserlo in futuro: <Moreover, it should be borne in mind that once a mark has been registered its proprietor has the right to use it as he or she sees fit so that, for the purposes of assessing whether an application for registration falls within the ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, it is necessary to ascertain whether there is a likelihood of confusion in all the circumstances in which the marks at issue might be used (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 12 June 2008, O2 Holdings and O2 (UK), C‑533/06, EU:C:2008:339, paragraph 66). Thus, it should be noted that the factors which may vary over time and depend on the wishes of the proprietors of those marks are not suitable for the purposes of the prospective analysis of the likelihood of confusion (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 2007, T.I.M.E. ART v OHIM, C‑171/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:171, paragraph 59). It follows that the applicant’s claim that it was not, at the time when the action was brought, a competitor of SNCF Mobilités does not rule out those marks from, in the future, being used so as to create, on the part of the relevant public, a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision>, § 53.

Confondibilità tra marchi “atletici”

Altra sentenza-scuola intorno al giudizio di confondibilità tra due marchi , il primo complesso (denominativo-figurativo) e il secondo solo denominativo.

Si tratta di Trib. UE 15.10.2020, T-349/19, Decathlon c. EUIPO( – Athlon custom sportsewear) .

Quello sub iudice:

Quello anteriore fatto valere dall’opponente:

– EU word mark DECATHLON

Il Tribunale non ravvisa la confondibilità, confermando il giudizio del Board of Appeal dell’EUIPO.

La parte più interessante è la comparazione tra segni, §§ 28-58, ove i consueti tre profili: visual [prevalgono gli elementi di differenza, § 46], phonetic [simile, § 48] and conceptual comparison [simili per la parte di pubblico che comprende il significato, anche se il marchio successivo è debole, § 56, pur se la parte figurativa riduce la somigliazna, § 58 e § 78].

Interessante è la individuazione del pubblico rilevante: dati i prodotti (abbigliamento sportivo), <<it is appropriate to take into account the public with the lowest level of attention, namely the general public, whose level of attention is normal.>>, § 24.

Però il marchio Decathlon è debole e la nota azienda francese cerca di far riconoscere che ha però acquisito distintività sufficiente (enhanced distinctive character): domanda però rigettata (come già presso EUIPO) perchè le prove riguardavano i servizi di distribuzione commerciale, non i prodotti, § 72, e per latre ragioni

Il Board di appello EUIPO aveva ritenuto che, < in the light of the ‘low’ degree of visual similarity between the signs at issue and of the absence of objective and solid evidence showing an enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark for the goods upon which the opposition was based, there was, in spite of the identity of the goods at issue, no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for the relevant public throughout the European Union that perceived the words ‘decathlon’ and ‘athlon’ as having as similar meaning. According to the Board of Appeal, that applies even more so with respect to the relevant public that does not understand those words or only understands the meaning of one of them>> § 79.

Il Tribunale :

<< Next, it is appropriate to refer to the principle that a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (…) .

Furthermore, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the visual, aural or conceptual aspects of the opposing signs do not always have the same weight and the extent of the similarity or difference between those signs may depend on their inherent qualities (see judgment of 22 February 2018, International Gaming Projects v EUIPO – Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO), T‑210/17, not published, EU:T:2018:91, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).>>, §§ 87-88.

L’aspetto visuale è predominante nel caso specifico per due ragioni

<<In the first place, it is apparent from the case-law that, where the elements of similarity between two signs are the result of the fact that they have a weakly distinctive component in common, the impact of those elements of similarity on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion is itself low (see judgment of 22 February 2018, TRIPLE TURBO, T‑210/17, not published, EU:T:2018:91, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).

In the present case, it was found that the word element ‘athlon’, which was common to the signs at issue, had a weak distinctive character for part of the public and would not therefore be perceived as an indication of commercial origin (see paragraphs 53 to 57 above).

Consequently, the visual differences noted above, which arise primarily from the stylisation of the common word element and of the figurative element in the mark applied for, will dominate in the overall impression on the relevant public created by the signs at issue. Those differences will thus counteract the phonetic similarity and, for part of the public, the conceptual similarity resulting from the common word element ‘athlon’ and the concept to which it refers.

In the second place, the marketing circumstances are a relevant factor in the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and are to be taken into account at the stage of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and not at that of the assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue (judgment of 4 March 2020, EUIPO v Equivalenza Manufactory, C‑328/18 P, EU:C:2020:156, paragraph 70).

In the present case, the goods at issue, namely athletic clothes and hats, are in a sector in which visual perception of the marks will generally take place prior to purchase. Consequently, the visual aspect is of greater importance in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion>>, §§ 90-94

Di conseguenza ,<< in the light in particular of the weak distinctive character of the element ‘athlon’, of the dominance of the weak, or even very weak, visual similarity and of the circumstances under which the goods in question are marketed, it follows from all the foregoing that there is no likelihood of confusion.>>, § 95

Sentenza-scuola sul modo di condurre il giudizio intorno al rischio di confondibilità tra marchi

La recente sentenza del Tribunale UE 2 dicembre 2020, caso T-687/19, InMusic Brands C. Euipo-Equipson, può essere considerata un promemoria di come vada condotto il giudizio di confondibilità in materia di marchi registrati

Il marchio posteriore (quello contestato) era denominativo (<MarQ>, § 2) mentre quello anteriore (l’opponente) era “complesso”, in quanto costituito da una componente denominativa quasi identica (solo la Q era sostituita dalla K) preceduta da una componente figurativa, contenente una M stilizzata in bianco su fondo rosso

Il marchio posteriore è stato registrato per classi 9 e 11, mentre il marchio anteriore per classe 9. Sostanzialmente si trattava di materiali elettrici o da concerto (speaker amplificatori eccetera)

La normativa di riferimento è costituita dal regolamento 207 del 2009 , articoli 8.1.b relativamente all’articolo 53. 1. a.

L’opponente contesta la novità del secondo marchio, stante la propria registrazione anteriore

Non ci sono insegnamenti eclatanti. Si ricordano regole consuete come quelle per cui:

– è sufficiente che i motivi di rifiuto ci siano solo per una parte dell’Unione, § 22;

– deve guardarsi al consumatore medio dei beni sub-judice ragionevolmente informato e attento, § 24;

– il marchio complesso non viene esaminato nelle sue componenti singolarmente prese (una alla volta) , ma come una totalità, § 54 – 55;

– la somiglianza tra i segni deve essere esaminata sotto i tre soliti profili visuale-fonetico-concettuale, § 54;

– la maggior/minor somiglianza tra segni si compensa con la maggior/minor affinita merceologica , § 90.

Interessano semmai alcune peculiarità del caso specifico.

Per i prodotti sub iudice il consumatore di riferimento è sia il pubblico generale sia i professionisti del settore della preparazione dei concerti, § 29-33. Nei paragrafi successivi poi si tiene conto anche della frequenza di acquisto e dell’importanza del fattore costo. Per l’ufficio amministrativo, sebbene <‘lighting mixers’ were not purchased on a daily basis, they were not, however, necessarily particularly expensive. It concluded that the level of attention of the relevant public in respect of all the goods in question varied from average to high depending on the price and technical sophistication of the goods concerned>, § 34.

Ne segue che bisogna capire come giudicare quanto il consumatore appartiene a categorie diverse, come nel caso de quo. Il Tribunale è assai chiaro : circa il giudizio confusorio, <<where the relevant public consists of consumers who are part of the general public and of professionals, the section of the public with the lowest level of attention must be taken into consideration >>, § 39.

Altra peculiarità è che i <sound and Lighting mixers> costituiscono due prodotti separati, non potendo essere ritenuto un unico prodotto, paragrafo 48.

In presenza di un marchio composto di elementi figurativi e verbali, sono i primi maggiormente distintivi dei secondi poichè è più semplice ricordare e citare un marchio col nome che descriverne gli elementi figurativi , § 63.

Le differenze tra i due Marchi (vedili meglio nelle riproduzioni presenti in sentenza) non eliminano la somiglianza visiva, § 72.

Quanto alla somiglianza fonetica, anche questa è accertata come esistente paragrafo 82

La somiglianza concettuale, infine, secondo il Tribunale manca, dal momento che il marchio anteriore Marc con la Q non ha un significato specifico e per questo motivo non può essere stabilito un giudizio di somiglianza o di similianza concettuale.

Quanto al giudizio sul rischio di confusione, i tre profili della somiglianza tra segni non sempre vanno necesariamente “pesati” allo stesso modo, potendo variare in base alle qualità intrinseche dei segni o alle condizioni di vendita. paragrafo 97 . In particolare, <if the goods covered by the marks in question are usually sold in self-service stores where consumers choose the product themselves and must therefore rely primarily on the image of the trade mark applied to the product, the visual similarity between the signs will as a general rule be more important. If, on the other hand, the product covered is primarily sold orally, greater weight will usually be attributed to any phonetic similarity between the signs (judgment of 6 October 2004, New Look v OHIM – Naulover (NLSPORT, NLJEANS, NLACTIVE and NLCollection), T‑117/03 to T‑119/03 and T‑171/03, EU:T:2004:293, paragraph 49).>.

Questo è forse il passaggio più interessante.

Nel caso specifico, viene respinta l’istanza del titolare contestato, secondo cui la vicinanza fonetica ha poca importanza: <sebbene in beni siano <<‘sold as seen’ in self-service stores or through catalogues, they are also likely to be recommended or purchased orally. Consumers could seek assistance from a salesperson or be led to choose goods from the categories in question because they have heard them being spoken about, in which case they might retain the phonetic impression of the mark in question as well as the visual aspect. Therefore, in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the phonetic identity between those signs is, in this case, at least as important as their visual similarity)>>, § 98..

Il giudizio di confondibilità dato dall’ufficio amministrativo, quindi, va confermato, § 99