PROPRIETA’ INTELLETTUALE / DIRITTO INDUSTRIALE/ANTITRUST – Pagina 5

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>>.

Marchi musicali: difficile registrarli!

Marcel Pemsel in IPKat ci notizia di una decisione di appello dell’Ufficio europeo sulla registrazione (che viene negata, confermando il 1 grado) di un jingle sonoro di due secondi (ascoltabile qui): 5° BoA EUIPO 02.04.2024, Case R 2220/2023-5, Berliner Verkehrsunternehmen (BVG), (trad. inglese automatica, orig. tedesco)

<<18 The sign applied for is a sound sign of two seconds, which consists only of a simple sequence of four different perceptible sounds. The applicant’s argument that the sound mark consisted of many different sounds that were played at the same time by several votes is incorrect in this respect. The sign is so short that only four sounds are perceived.
19. The sign applied for is so short and commonplace that it has no resonance or a certain recognition value that would enable the targeted consumers to regard it as an indication of origin and not merely as a functional element or as a reference without message.
20. It is a generally known fact, which is argued both by the examiner and by the applicant, that a short sound sequence is usually played before loudspeaker messages in relation to information on means of transport, so that travellers direct their attention to the following message. Normally, these announcements take place in environments with many different sounds, which means that it is not easy for the pushchair to distinguish the message from other background sounds. Loudspeaker messages, which are initiated by a Jtelevisions, become part of transport; Passenger transport in Class 39, that is to say, for example, at airport maintenance halls, on traction and bus transport. If the relevant consumer heard the sound sign applied for before passing through a loudspeaker, he will not associate it with a particular undertaking without familiarisation and will simply perceive it as a sound which is intended to attract the attention of the reader and direct it to the subsequent loudspeaker diffusers. It is therefore a sound sign that simply has a functional task, namely to announce or causes a loudspeaker penetration.
21. Also in relation to the services packaging of goods; Storage of goods; The sign applied for is not capable of performing its main function as an indication of commercial origin. If the trade circles targeted come into contact with this very short and simple sound sequence in connection with these services, they will at most assume that the sound refers to certain aspects of the service (e.g. the beginning of an announcement) or is used in advertising for
these services. The sign is therefore devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to all the services applied for in Class 39>>.

Effettivamente, oltre ad essere brevissimo, è pure un suono banale.

Il marchio denominativo PABLO ESCOBAR è non registrabil eper contrarietòà all’ordine poujbblucio

Trib. UE 17 April 2024 , T-25/23, Escobar inc c EUIPO, sull’art. 7.1.f reg. 2017/1001 applicato al marchio costituito dal nome del noto boss della droga:

<<17 As the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the contested decision, the relevant public cannot be limited, for the purposes of the examination of the ground for refusal provided for in Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001, solely to the public to which the goods and services in respect of which registration is sought are directly addressed. Consideration must be given to the fact that the sign caught by that ground for refusal will shock not only the public to which the goods and services designated by the sign are addressed, but also other persons who, without being concerned by those goods and services, will encounter that sign incidentally in their day-to-day lives (see judgment of 15 March 2018, La Mafia Franchises v EUIPO – Italy (La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA), T‑1/17, EU:T:2018:146, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

18 In addition, in order to apply that ground for refusal, it is necessary to take account not only of the circumstances common to all Member States of the European Union but also the particular circumstances of individual Member States which are likely to influence the perception of the relevant public within those States (see judgment of 15 March 2018, La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA, T‑1/17, EU:T:2018:146, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).

19 In paragraph 24 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that the goods and services covered by the mark applied for were aimed at a professional public and at the general public, whose level of attention would vary from low, in respect of everyday consumer goods, to high, in respect of very sophisticated goods or services. However, as stated in paragraphs 28 to 34 of the contested decision, it chose to assess, in the present case, the existence of the ground for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001 in relation to the Spanish public, on the ground that that was the public most familiar with the Colombian national called Pablo Escobar, born on 1 December 1949 and presumed to be a drug lord and narco-terrorist who founded and was the sole leader of the Medellín cartel (Colombia), on account of the privileged links, in particular historical links, between Spain and Colombia.

20 Those assessments, which, moreover, are not disputed by the parties, appear to be well founded and may be upheld, with the result that, in the present case, it is necessary to focus on the relevant Spanish public in order to assess, for the purposes of examining the present plea, the existence of the absolute ground for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001.

21 In paragraphs 46 to 54 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that at least a non-negligible part of the relevant Spanish public would associate the mark applied for with Pablo Escobar, perceived as a symbol of a drug lord and a narco-terrorist.

22 In paragraphs 55 to 69 of the contested decision, it found that the mark applied for, understood in the manner referred to in paragraph 21 above, would be perceived as being contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality by the non-negligible part of the relevant Spanish public which would associate it with the crimes committed by the Medellín cartel or directly attributed to Pablo Escobar, which were unacceptable in modern democratic societies, as they were absolutely contrary to the recognised ethical and moral principles, not only in Spain but also in all EU Member States, and constituted one of the most serious threats to the fundamental interests of society and the maintenance of social peace and order. The mark applied for contradicts, for a non-negligible part of the general public exposed to it, the indivisible and universal values on which the European Union is founded, namely human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity, and the principles of democracy and the rule of law, as proclaimed in the Charter, and the right to life and physical integrity. Furthermore, for the many consumers of the goods and services at issue who, in particular in Spain, share those values, the mark applied for could be perceived as being highly offensive or shocking, as an apology of crime and a trivialisation of the suffering caused to thousands of people killed or injured by the Medellín cartel, of which Pablo Escobar was the presumed leader. That suffering is not erased by the actions in favour of the poor or the role of ‘Robin Hood’ which the applicant or many Colombians attribute to Pablo Escobar in Colombia, or by the fact that he has become an icon of popular culture in Spain.

23 Lastly, in paragraphs 70 to 78 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal rejected the applicant’s arguments alleging that signs identical with, or similar to, the mark applied for had already been applied for or registered, as trade marks, by national offices or by EUIPO, observing that, in some of those decisions, the signs at issue had been refused registration on the ground that they were contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality, and that, in any event and according to the case-law, the Board of Appeal was not bound by those decisions and had to rule solely on the basis of Regulation 2017/1001.

24 However, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal did not examine, in the contested decision, whether the majority of that public would perceive the mark applied for as being immoral. It should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, the assessment of the existence of a ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001 cannot be based either on the perception of the majority of the relevant public taken into account or on that of the parts of that public that does not find anything shocking or that may be very easily offended, but must be based on the standard of a reasonable person with average sensitivity and tolerance thresholds (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 2018, La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA, T‑1/17, EU:T:2018:146, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2020, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO, C‑240/18 P, EU:C:2020:118, paragraph 42).

25 In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal correctly referred, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 24 above, to the perception of the persons who, within the relevant Spanish public taken into account, could be regarded as reasonable and having average sensitivity and tolerance thresholds and who, as such, shared the indivisible and universal values on which the European Union is founded.

26 Accordingly, the applicant is not justified in claiming that the Board of Appeal misinterpreted or misapplied or applied Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001 too liberally, by not referring, in that regard, to the perception of the majority of the persons making up the relevant Spanish public taken into account.

27 Furthermore, in the contested decision, the Board of Appeal was justified in finding that the persons referred to in paragraph 25 above would associate the name of Pablo Escobar with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism and with the crimes and suffering resulting therefrom, rather than with his possible good deeds in favour of the poor in Colombia, and would therefore perceive the mark applied for, corresponding to that name, as running counter to the fundamental values and moral standards prevailing within Spanish society.

28 The fact, evidenced by the documents produced in the file by the applicant, that the names of Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone or Che Guevara have already been registered as EU trade marks, which have subsequently either expired or been cancelled, is not such as to call into question the assessments by which the Board of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied, in the present case, Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001, as interpreted by the case-law, by referring to the specific perception of the name Pablo Escobar by the persons referred to in paragraph 25 above.

29 In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the case-law, the decisions concerning the registration of a sign as an EU trade mark which EUIPO is led to take under Regulation 2017/1001 are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion. Accordingly, the legality of those decisions of the Boards of Appeal must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation, as interpreted by the Courts of the European Union, and not on the basis of a previous decision-making practice (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2007, Alcon v OHIM, C‑412/05 P, EU:C:2007:252, paragraph 65)>>. –> Il precedente non è vincolante: il giudice (l’Ufficio EUIPO) è soggetto solo alla legge

Marchio di posizione confermato insufficientemente distintivo e quindi nullo dal Board of Appeal EUIPO

Anna Maria Stein su IPKat ci notizia della decisione 2nd board of Appeal EUIPO Cnitts KX ltd 19.02.2024, caso R 514/2023-2 .

Si trattava di marchio di posizione costituito da poligono a sei lati collocato in quattro punti di un occhiale:

il segno contestato:

40 The contested mark is not a mere figurative mark, but a position mark and has to be assessed as such. A trade mark may be devoid of distinctive character as a figurative mark but when applied for on a specific position or positions it may obtain a distinctive character. Thus, the position of the trade mark is relevant for the overall assessment.
However, it is to be stressed that the mark as such is also relevant for the overall
comparison.

41 The representation of the contested mark shows the position of four six-sided irregular black polygons (hereinafter ‘polygons’) each with a straight upper and lower edge and with the vertical sides formed by two parallel lines of equal length that converge inwards in a slightly concave fashion, each at the same angle. Two of these polygons are placed in a vertical direction on the front of the frames one on the left and one on the right, and two are placed horizontally on the outside part of the left and right temples. It is to be stressed that the shape of the glasses that are shown by means of dotted lines do not form part of the subject matter of the registration in accordance with Article 3(3)(d) EUTMIR

Giudizio:

49 As to the position mark showing four polygons instead of one, there is nothing about these polygons and as affixed on the goods that is unusual or memorable that might enable the relevant public to perceive the sign immediately as distinctive.
50 As correctly pointed out by the applicant, it is irrelevant whether the sign serves other functions in addition to that of an indication of origin, e.g. an aesthetic (decorative) function. However, the Board considers that the contested mark at hand does not serve (inherently) as an indication of origin. The position sign for which protection is sought on that, it is stressed, particular place of the frame and temples will be perceived by the relevant public (even to the extent it has a high level of attention) and in relation to all contested goods solely as a decoratively finished mechanism or rivet (a rivet as such has a dual purpose by having a functional and decorative purpose) that connects to or covers
the hinge that attaches the end piece or the front of the glasses to the arms (temples). (….)

54 Furthermore, as to the size of the elements of the four polygons and as affixed on the eyewear, the applicant itself admits that these elements are small but argues that this not relevant. It is true, that the size does not automatically disqualify any trade mark that is to be placed on eyewear frames from protection. Furthermore, the Board does not consider the small size of the four polygons at issue as a decisive factor. However, as an accessory remark, bearing in mind that it is unlikely that most of the consumers will analyse the mark in detail, the smaller the polygons at issue, the more difficult it may be for the
public to distinguish them from other plane figures. This finding of the public’s
perception is not changed by the applicant’s argument that the size is small due to the limited space for featuring a trade mark on eyewear frames.

Segue poi un ineressante aqnalisi del sondaggio demoscopico (mirante a provare che il segno sarebbe diustintivo presso i consumatiori tedeschi), § 59 ss

Negata la contraffazione di “Top Gun Maverick” rispetto all’originario articolo giornalistico “Top Gun”

Interessante sentenza segnalata da Hayleigh Bosher richiamando il sito Variety.com del US Central District California , Shosh Yonay, et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, et al., Case 2:22-cv-03846-PA-GJS del 5 aprile 2024 sulla domanda di contraffazione svolta dagli eredi di Ehud Yonay autore dell’articolo TOP Gun che ispirò la prima versione del film (regolarmente accosentita dal giornalista) e oggi pure il sequel (non acconsentita, , nemmeno come credits, non valendo l’originario consenso per gli eredi)

Per la corte non c’è la substanzial similarity dell’exstrinsic test , dopo aver esaminato i segg. profili: a) Plot, Sequence of Events, and Pacing; b. Theme and Mood; c. Dialogue and Characters; d. Setting; e. Selection and Arrangement.

Qui conta l’analisi del giudice circa le somiglianze delel aprti espressive, non delle m,ere idee o siotuiazioni., tenuto conto del camvbio dio gemnre artistico (articolo giornlastici –> film)

Ancora sulla responsabilità degli internet provider per le violazioni copyright dei loro utenti (con un cenno a Twitter v. Taamneh della Corte Suprema USA, 2023)

Approfondita sentenza (segnalata e linkata da Eric Goldman, che va sempre ringraziato) US BANKRUPTCY COURT-SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, In re: FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Reorganized Debtors, Case No. 20-22476 (MG), del 27 marzo 2024.

Si v. spt. :

-sub III.A, p. 13 ss, “Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement Is a Well-Established Doctrine”;

– sub III.B “Purpose and Effect of DMCA § 512”, 24 ss.

– sub III.D “Twitter Did Not Silently Rewrite Well-Established Jurisprudence on Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement” p. 31 ss sul rapporto tra la disciplina delle violazioni copyright e la importante sentenza della Corte Suprema Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023).

Di quest’ultima riporto due passaggi dal Syllabus iniziale:

– la causa petendi degli attori contro Twitter (e Facebook e Google):

<< Plaintiffs allege that defendants aided and abetted ISIS in the
following ways: First, they provided social-media platforms, which are
generally available to the internet-using public; ISIS was able to up-
load content to those platforms and connect with third parties on them.
Second, defendants’ recommendation algorithms matched ISIS-re-
lated content to users most likely to be interested in that content. And,
third, defendants knew that ISIS was uploading this content but took
insufficient steps to ensure that its content was removed. Plaintiffs do
not allege that ISIS or Masharipov used defendants’ platforms to plan
or coordinate the Reina attack. Nor do plaintiffs allege that defend-
ants gave ISIS any special treatment or words of encouragement. Nor
is there reason to think that defendants carefully screened any content
before allowing users to upload it onto their platforms>>

– La risposta della SCOTUS:

<<None of plaintiffs’ allegations suggest that defendants culpably “associate[d themselves] with” the Reina attack, “participate[d] in it as
something that [they] wishe[d] to bring about,” or sought “by [their]
action to make it succeed.” Nye & Nissen, 336 U. S., at 619 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Defendants’ mere creation of their media
platforms is no more culpable than the creation of email, cell phones,
or the internet generally. And defendants’ recommendation algorithms are merely part of the infrastructure through which all the content on their platforms is filtered. Moreover, the algorithms have been presented as agnostic as to the nature of the content. At bottom, the allegations here rest less on affirmative misconduct and more on passive nonfeasance. To impose aiding-and-abetting liability for passive nonfeasance, plaintiffs must make a strong showing of assistance and scienter. Plaintiffs fail to do so.
First, the relationship between defendants and the Reina attack is
highly attenuated. Plaintiffs make no allegations that defendants’ relationship with ISIS was significantly different from their arm’s
length, passive, and largely indifferent relationship with most users.
And their relationship with the Reina attack is even further removed,
given the lack of allegations connecting the Reina attack with ISIS’ use
of these platforms. Second, plaintiffs provide no reason to think that
defendants were consciously trying to help or otherwise participate in
the Reina attack, and they point to no actions that would normally
support an aiding-and-abetting claim.
Plaintiffs’ complaint rests heavily on defendants’ failure to act; yet
plaintiffs identify no duty that would require defendants or other communication-providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends. Even if
such a duty existed in this case, it would not transform defendants’
distant inaction into knowing and substantial assistance that could
establish aiding and abetting the Reina attack. And the expansive
scope of plaintiffs’ claims would necessarily hold defendants liable as
having aided and abetted each and every ISIS terrorist act committed
anywhere in the world. The allegations plaintiffs make here are not
the type of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance to a series of
terrorist activities that could be described as aiding and abetting each
terrorist act by ISIS.
In this case, the failure to allege that the platforms here do more
than transmit information by billions of people—most of whom use the
platforms for interactions that once took place via mail, on the phone,
or in public areas—is insufficient to state a claim that defendants
knowingly gave substantial assistance and thereby aided and abetted
ISIS’ acts. A contrary conclusion would effectively hold any sort of
communications provider liable for any sort of wrongdoing merely for
knowing that the wrongdoers were using its services and failing to stop
them. That would run roughshod over the typical limits on tort liability and unmoor aiding and abetting from culpability>>.

La norma asseritamente violata dalle piattaforme era il 18 U.S. Code § 2333 (d) (2), secondo cui : <<2) Liability.— In an action under subsection (a) for an injury arising from an act of international terrorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), as of the date on which such act of international terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized, liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism>>.

Marchio di colore e secondary meaning

Marcel Pemsel in IPKat dà notizia di una interssante sentenza che andrà studiata con attenzione (assieme ai suoi precedenti amministrativi) sui due temi in oggetto: Trib. UE T-652/22 del 6 maerzo 2024, Lidl c. EUIPO-MHCS (successore di Veuve Clicquot).

Si tratta di marchio di colore (anzi marchio figurativo era stato detto inizialmente: da studiarne la differenza disciplinare) assai noto, l’arancione della celebre casa vinicola:

Circa l’art. 4 del reg. 40/1994 (Segni atti a costituire un marchio comunitario: Possono costituire marchi comunitari tutti i segni che possono essere riprodotti graficamente, in particolare le parole, compresi i nomi di persone, i disegni, le lettere, le cifre, la forma dei prodotti o del loro confezionamento, a condizione che tali segni siano adatti a distinguere i prodotti o i servizi di un’impresa da quelli di altre imprese), il T. non vede provblemmi: la descrizione e il codice tecnico assieme rendono sufficientemente descritto il segno scelto:

<<57 However, in the present case, it must be stated, first, that the description of the mark at issue was indeed taken into account by the Board of Appeal (see paragraph 67 of the contested decision). Secondly, it must be pointed out, as observed by the intervener, that although the applicant submits that the scientific definition of the CIE satisfies neither the criteria of the judgment in Sieckmann nor those of Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94, it has not claimed that there is a contradiction between the colour sample at issue and the description containing the scientific definition of the CIE. When questioned on that point at the hearing, the applicant argued that the actual demonstration of the contradiction was not the subject matter of the present proceedings.

58 Thus, since, in the present case, the requirements of Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94, as set out by the judgment in Sieckmann, are met by the colour sample at issue (see paragraph 54 above) and are not contradicted by the description provided and the scientific definition that was indeed taken into account together (see paragraph 57 above), it is not necessary to examine whether the description of the mark at issue and the scientific definition of the CIE satisfy the criteria of that article and that judgment. According to the case-law cited in paragraphs 55 and 56 above, there is no requirement that the description of the mark, when included in the application form, must by itself satisfy the criteria of the article>>.

Più dettagliato è lo snodo motivatorio sulla prova del secondary meaning che deve riguardare tutta la UE. Prova assai complicata per chiunque, anche per i colossi del vino.

Qui non posso che rimandare alla sentenza, che conclude affermando l’insufficienza di valutazione e rimandand in sede amministrativa.

Anche le “entità di gestione indipendente”, e non solo gli “organismi di gestione collettiva”, possono operare in Italia: importante pronuncia della Corte dui Giustizia sul copyright europeo e in particolare sulla direttiva 2014/26

La corte di giustizia UE 21.03.2024, C-10/22, LEA c. Jamendo SA, scrive una pag. importante della gestione collettiva dei diritti di autore europei, applicando la dir. 2014/26.

Non solo gli OGC ma anche le EGI (v. le sette differenze elencate ai §§ 87-95) devono potere operare parimenti nel trerritorio naizonale come intermediari nello sfruttamento dei dirittti: quindi l’art 180 l. aut. è illegittimo (rectius: incompatibile col diritto UE).

La discrminazione è vietata dalla regola di libera prestazione dei servizi posta non tanto dalle direttive 2000/31 e 2006/31 (che eccettuano il copyright), quanto direttamente dall’art. 56 TFUE, rispetto al quale la radicale esclusione delle EGI manca della proporzinalità.

<< 96 Alla luce delle considerazioni che precedono, si deve ritenere che il trattamento differenziato, operato dalla normativa nazionale di cui trattasi, delle entità di gestione indipendenti rispetto agli organismi di gestione collettiva risponda all’intento di conseguire l’obiettivo di protezione del diritto d’autore in modo coerente e sistematico, dal momento che la direttiva 2014/26 assoggetta le entità di gestione indipendenti ad obblighi meno rigorosi rispetto a quelli degli organismi di gestione collettiva per quanto riguarda, in particolare, l’accesso all’attività di gestione dei diritti d’autore e dei diritti connessi, la concessione delle licenze, le modalità di governance nonché il quadro di sorveglianza cui sono soggette. In dette circostanze, tale trattamento differenziato può essere considerato idoneo a garantire il conseguimento di detto obiettivo.

97 Tuttavia, per quanto concerne, sotto un secondo profilo, la questione se la restrizione consistente nell’escludere le entità di gestione indipendenti dall’attività di intermediazione dei diritti d’autore non vada oltre quanto è necessario per garantire il conseguimento dell’obiettivo di interesse generale connesso alla protezione del diritto d’autore, occorre rilevare che una misura meno lesiva della libera prestazione di servizi potrebbe consistere, segnatamente, nel subordinare la prestazione di servizi di intermediazione dei diritti d’autore nello Stato membro interessato a obblighi normativi specifici che sarebbero giustificati riguardo all’obiettivo di protezione del diritto d’autore.

98 Pertanto, occorre constatare che la normativa nazionale di cui trattasi nel procedimento principale, nella misura in cui preclude, in modo assoluto, a qualsiasi entità di gestione indipendente, a prescindere dagli obblighi normativi cui essa è soggetta in forza del diritto nazionale dello Stato membro in cui è stabilita, di esercitare una libertà fondamentale garantita dal Trattato FUE, risulta andare oltre quanto è necessario per proteggere il diritto d’autore>>.

Concorrenza sleale verso Amazon per recensioni fasulle e prezzolate

Provvedimento cautelare interessante, anche non del tutto condivisibile, quello emesso da Trib. Milano sez. impr., ord., 21 marzo 2024, giudice Dal Moro (menzionato in molti siti; testo preso da Foro Italiano-News), Amazon EU sarl+1 c. DP.

La cautela inibitoria si basa su slealtà concorrenziale (art. 2598 n. 3 cc), data dalla falsità delle recensioni fatte apparire sul marketplace di Amazon in attuazione di apposito business (l’anonimato del quale e del suo sito è facilmente superabile con qualche rapida ricerca in rete e probabilmente pure dalla pubblicazione ordinata dal giudice sui siti Altroconsumo e Codacons)

In breve il soggetto pagava chi andava poi a disporre (o aveva in precedenza disposto) recensioni false su questo o quel venditore.

L’illiceità è sicura. Altrettanto non è la qualificazione come concorrenza sleale, mancando il rapporto di concorrenza.

Il Trib. opina in senso opposto: <<In secondo luogo, pare altrettanto indubitabile che l’attività economica svolta nella specie (offerta del servizio di recensione) concorra con quella medesima svolta da Amazon sul medesimo mercato, posto che quest’ultimo, come affermato anche in sede di legittimità, è identificato dalla “comunanza di clientela” da intendersi come “insieme dei consumatori che sentono il medesimo bisogno di mercato e, pertanto, si rivolgono a tutti i prodotti (beni o servizi n.d.r.) che sono in grado di soddisfare quel bisogno”, e che, quindi, l’attività in concreto svolta deve identificarsi anche alla luce dell'”esito di mercato fisiologico e prevedibile”, e comprenda, perciò, servizi “affini e succedanei rispetto a quelli offerti dal soggetto che lamenta la concorrenza sleale”.
Il “mercato dell’offerta in vendita” su cui opera Amazon si articola anche in un segmento specifico identificato nel servizio accessorio e funzionale delle recensioni dei prodotti venduti, il quale viene svolto anche dal sig. P., con strumenti che lo rendono illecito non solo perché mira a falsare la genuinità del riscontro del consumatore/ acquirente, ma anche perché si avvale in maniera subdola dello strumento che Amazon stessa utilizza per rendere detto servizio, alterandone la veridicità e l’affidabilità con conseguente grave danno all’immagine e alla reputazione della ricorrente. >>

La concorenzialità invece manca: Amazon trae ricavi dalla percentuale sui ricavi conseguiti dal venditore, non dalle recensioni, che sono solo strumentali a creare affidabilità verso il marketplace.

Nemmeno il periculum in mora pare esistere.

Dice invece di si il Trib.: <<Il Tribunale ritiene che sussista, altresì, il periculum in mora presupposto dell’emissione del richiesto provvedimento cautelare. Infatti, in assenza di un provvedimento urgente, appare fondato il timore che nell’attesa di una decisione di merito la prosecuzione di siffatta condotta illecita possa concorrere a causare pregiudizi difficilmente riparabili se non irreparabili in termini di credibilità della piattaforma di vendita on line ricorrente, considerando anche che risulta che il business illecito del P. si rivolga in modo prevalente a detta piattaforma e che stia, altresì, intensificandosi con particolare riferimento proprio alla medesima (cfr. doc. 18 e doc. 19, contenenti “screenshot” del sito (omissis), rispettivamente, alla sezione “bestsellers” in cui vengono pubblicizzati cinque pacchetti di recensioni false tre dei quali riferibili allo store Amazon, e alla sezione “nuovi arrivi” in cui vengono pubblicizzati pacchetti di recensioni false esclusivamente riferibili allo store Amazon)>>.

Che per qualche mese in più di opertività vernga irreparabilmente lesa la credibilità di Amazon, non è molto credibile. Si tenga infatti conto da un lato che una larga parte delle recensioni in rete è di assai dubbia veridicità e, dall’altro, che si tratta di fatto notorio (basta una rapida googlata di articoli in proposito).

L’irreparabilità poi andrebbe comunque argomentata un pò meglio.

Rivendicazioni e descrizione nell’interpretazione del brevetto

Europeran Patent Office, Board of appeal, 28.-09.2023, case numeber T 0447/ 22 – 3.2.05, Patent Proprietor: Picote Solutions Oy Ltd , § 13.1 Reasons, p. 43 ss:

<<There is an extensive body of case law of the Boards of
Appeal according to which, within certain limits, a
claim may be interpreted with the help of the
description and the drawings for understanding the
subject-matter to be assessed under the requirements of
the EPC.
It is a general principle applied throughout the EPC
that a term of a claim can be interpreted only in
context. The claims do not stand on their own, but
together with the description and the drawings they are
part of a unitary document, which must be read as a
whole (see e.g. T 556/02, Reasons 5.3; T 1646/12,
Reasons 2.1, T 1817/14, Reasons 7.3, and T 169/20,
Reasons 1).
The extent to which description and drawings can
provide an aid to interpret the claims is however
subject to certain limitations.
A decision often cited in this context is T 190/99,
which in point 2.4 of the Reasons states that the
skilled person when considering a claim should rule out
interpretations which are illogical or which do not
make technical sense. He should try, with synthetical
propensity i.e. building up rather than tearing down,
to arrive at an interpretation of the claim which is
technically sensible and takes into account the whole
disclosure of the patent; the patent must be construed
by a mind willing to understand not a mind desirous of
misunderstanding.
The present board concurs with T 1408/04 (Reasons 1)
that this statement must be understood to mean only
that technically illogical interpretations should be
excluded (see also T 1582/08, Reasons 16, and T 169/20,
Reasons 1.3.3). A claim can thus be interpreted in the
light of the description and the drawings to the extent
that they contain logical and technical sensible
information.
Furthermore, interpreting the claims in the light of
the description and the drawings does not make it
legitimate to read into the claim features appearing
only in the description or the drawings and then
relying on such features to provide a distinction over
the prior art. This would not be to interpret claims
but to rewrite them (see T 881/01, Reasons 2.1). In this context, it is important to differentiate between a claim consisting of terms with a clear technical
meaning and an unclear claim wording. The preparatory
material available on the discussions leading up to the
European Patent Convention shows that even in the
framework of Article 69 EPC and its Protocol on
Interpretation (see for instance Armitage, “Die
Auslegung europäischer Patente”, in GRUR Int. 1983,
242; Decker in Stauder/Luginbühl, “Europäisches
Patentübereinkommen”, 9th edition, Art 69, marginal no.
22, with reference to Stauder, “Die
Entstehungsgeschichte von Art 69(1) EPÜ und Art 8(3)
StraßbÜ über den Schutzbereich des Patents”, GRUR Int.
1990, 793, 799), it was never the scope to exclude what
on the clear meaning was covered by the terms of the
claims. Accordingly, many decisions of the Boards of
Appeal have concluded that a discrepancy between the
claims and the description is not a valid reason to
ignore the clear linguistic structure of a claim and to
interpret it differently (see, for example, T 431/03,
Reasons 2.2.2; T 1597/12, Reasons 3.2.1; T 1249/14,
Reasons 1.5). The description cannot be used to give a
different meaning to a claim feature which in itself
imparts a clear, credible technical teaching to the
skilled reader (T 1018/02, Reasons 3.8; T 1391/15,
Reasons 3.5). On a similar note, the board in T 197/10
(Reasons 2.3) held that, in the event of a discrepancy
between the claims and the description, those elements
of the description not reflected in the claims are not,
as a rule, to be taken into account for the examination
of novelty and inventive step>>.

(segnalazione di Rose Hughes in IPKat)