PROPRIETA’ INTELLETTUALE / DIRITTO INDUSTRIALE/ANTITRUST – Pagina 7

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)

Nullità di combinazione cromatica come marchio perchè insufficientemente chiaro e preciso

Il 2° Board of Appeal EUIPO 07.02.2024m, Case R 2087/2023-2, Storch-Ciret Holding GmbH, decide sull’appello contro la decisione che aveva rigetgtat la domadna di retistarizone per il seguente segno

Conferma il 1 grado amministrativo per cui è insufficientemente preciso violando gli artt. 4 e 7.1.a):

24 On that basis, it must be found that the sign applied for does not meet the precision requirement specified in Article 3(3)(f) (ii) EUTMIR, which is also to be used when interpreting Article 4(b) EUTMR.
25 The rectangles reproduced in the representation mentioned are already visually reminiscent of a mere coloured pattern. Above all, however, it is evident from the nature of the applicant’s request, which is directed at a colour mark, that the representation in rectangles can only have a pattern. It cannot constitute a restriction of the colour shades to the shown sequence of rectangles. Such a view would be inconsistent with claiming as a colour mark (27/03/2019, C-578/17, Hartwall, EU:C:2019:261, § 40 et. seq.). If only a horizontal row of coloured rectangles with white intermediate areas were claimed, the trade mark would be a purely figurative mark which, as emphasised by the applicant, is precisely not claimed (cf. in this respect the first decision of the Office on the application
of 8 March 2021, 3 et seq.).
26 The distribution by volume of the colours claimed, which requires a sufficiently clear systematic arrangement (cf. denied in respect of ‘approximately 50 % to 50 %’ in 30/11/2017, T-102/15 ure T-101/15, BLUE AND SILVER, EU:T:2017:852, § 58 et seq.), is unclear in the present case. As stated, the reproduction of the shades in rectangles appears to be a simple representation of colour patterns. It may be that the applicant thereby wishes to express an identical distribution of these shades of colour.
However, there is no objective evidence of this, which means that there is ultimately a speculation. In addition, the quantitative proportion of the colour ‘white’ is also open to doubts. In the specific representation, it indicates a narrow distance between the individual shades of colour in the rectangles. However, as stated (para. 25), the application for protection is not restricted to a reproduction of the shades in rectangles. It is unclear how the proportion in other designs is supposed to be.
27 The representation applied for also leaves open the question of which systematic arrangement of the shades is otherwise claimed. The information provided by the applicant, if the entry as rectangles is not understood as conclusive, allows a large number of different combinations of colours to be associated (30/11/2017, T-102/15 — T-101/15, BLUE AND SILVER, EU:T:2017:852, § 58 et seq.; see also the colour mark ……….., 14/06/2012, T-293/10, seven squares of different colours, EU:T:2012:302, § 56 et seq.) comparable with the colour mark applied for. It is not even clear whether each of the colours has the same shape and be designed in parallel.
28 As a result, too many ambiguities remain in the present case, which cannot be to the detriment of the general public. In its submissions, too, the applicant itself only withdrew itself with the general assertion that what can be seen here was claimed. However, this is precisely unclear if no purely figurative design is claimed.
29 The applicant could have easily encountered these objections, for example by making use of the possibility of submitting a description in the field of colour combination marks by way of exception. It is correct that a description pursuant to Article 3(3)(f) (ii) EUTMIR is not formally mandatory. However, it remains the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the precision requirement under Article 4 EUTMR or the requirement of a systematic arrangement in which the colours concerned are combined in a predetermined and uniform manner pursuant to Article 3(3)(f) (ii) EUTMIR. That did not happen in this case.
30 The refusal of the application pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 EUTMR was therefore ultimately correct.
31 The examiner expressly refrained from refusing registration under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. That is logical, because such a decision requires a clear subject of the application, which cannot be assumed here. Nor does the Board currently see any basis for such a decision.
32 The applicant’s appeal therefore had to be dism