Molti giornali anche non specialistici hanno riportato la notizia per cui l’Ufficio Europeo dei marchi ha dichiarato nullo il marchio di Bansky riproducente il suo celebre disegno <Flower thrower>:
Si tratta della decisione 14.09.2020 sul marchio n° 012575155 , depositato il 07/02/2014.
La decisione può essere letta nel database dell’ufficio. Purtroppo non è divisa in §§ brevi per cui il resoconto può essere meno agevole del solito (mi riferirò dunque solo al numero di pagina)
Era stato chiesto per molte classi merceologiche.
La domanda di annullamento era fondata sia sull’art. 59.1.b (deposito in malafede) sia sull’art. 59.1.a riferito all’art. 7.1.b-c del reg. 2017/1001 c.d EUTMR. Viene accolta solo sul primo punto (malafade al momento del deposito), assorbita sul secondo.
In generale sulla buona fede l’Ufficio dice che ricorre <<where it is apparent from relevant and consistent indicia that the proprietor of an EU trade mark filed its application for registration without any intention of using the contested EUTM, or withoutthe aim of engaging fairly in competition, but with the intention of undermining the interests of third parties, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, or with the intention of obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes otherthan those falling within the functions of a trade mark, in particular the essential function of indicating origin>>, p. 9.
L’onere della prova <of the existence of bad faith lieswith the invalidity applicant; good faith is presumed until the opposite is proven>, p. 8.
Bansky (nome d’arte, l’artista è ancora anonimo) non commercializzava alcun bene al momento del deposito: anzi dichiarava che la cosa non lo interessava.
Iniziò ad operare commercialmente solo dopo aver ricevuto notifica della domanda di annullamento, aprendo un negozio (una mera vetrina, senza possibilità di acquisto) per indurre ad acquisti on line.
Ma anche questa attività, il punto è interessante a livello teorico, la pose in essere, dichiarando che non vi era interessato e che lo faceva solo per non decadere dal diritto di marchio : <From the evidence submitted Banksy had not manufactured, sold or provided any goods or services under the contested sign or sought to create a commercial market for his goods until after the filing of the present application for a declaration of invalidity. Only then, in October of 2019, he opened an online store (and had a physical shop but which was not opened to the public) but by his own words,reported in a number of different publications in the UK, he was not trying to carve out a portion of the commercial market by selling his goods, he was merely trying to fulfil the trade mark class categories to show use for these goods to circumvent the non-use of the sign requirement under EU law. Both Banksy and Mr. M.S, who is a Director of the proprietor, made statements that the goods were created and being sold solely for this cause>>, p. 11
Va notato che il registrante non era Bansky (allo scopo di restare anonimo) ma un suo rappresentante (the proprietor)
Il succo della decisione è qui: <<The EUTM was filed on 07/02/2014. The evidence shows that the proprietor did not sell any goods or provide any services under the sign until after the initiation of the present proceedings. In fact the evidence shows that Banksy repeatedly made statements that he was not making or selling any of these goods and that the third parties were doing this without his permission. The evidence also shows that from the time of filing of the EUTM until after the filing of the present application this position did not change. It was only during the course of the present proceedings (after the grace period had ended and after the present invalidity proceedings had been initiated) that Banksy started to sell goods but specifically stated that they were only being sold to overcome non-use for trade mark proceedings and not to commercialise the goods. Banksy by his own admission is clearly against intellectual property laws, but this does not mean that he is not afforded the same protection under these laws as everybody else. However, there are restrictions to the right to register a trade mark and that would be in the case where the mark is filed in bad faith>>
L’ufficio dice che la mala fede può ricorrere <if it transpires that the EUTM proprietor never had any intention to use the contested EUTM, for example, a trade mark application made without any intention to use the trade mark in relation to the goods and services covered by the registration constitutes bad faith if the applicant for registration of that mark had the intention either of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties, or of obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark>, p. 12.
Il dilemma di Bansky è chiaro, dice l’ufficio: <To protect the right under copyright law would require him to lose his anonymity which would undermine his persona. Moreover, there are a number of legal issues which might even result in it being very difficult for him to actually claim copyright over the work although this can be left open for the present purposes. It is clear that when the proprietor filed the EUTM he did not have any intention of using the sign to commercialise goods or provide services. The use, which was only made after the initiation of the present proceedings, was identified as use to circumvent the requirements of trade mark law and thus there was no intention to genuinely use the sign as a trade mark. Banksy was trying to use the sign only to show that he had an intention of using the sign, but his own words and those of his legal representative, unfortunately undermined this effort. Thus it must be concluded that there was no intention to genuinely use the sign as a trade mark and the only eventual use made of the sign was made with the intention of obtaining an exclusive right to the sign for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark>, p. 12
Bisognerebbe però distinguere bene il caso della mancanza di uso da quello di uso presente ma finalizzato solo alla conservazione del diritto e nulla più: sul secondo si può discutere , costituendo il vero interesse teorico di questa vicenda. Va ricordato infatti che il registrante ha cinque anni a disposizione per iniziare l’uso, prima di decadere per non uso.
E’ noto che oggi in Italia non è necessario che il depositante sia già un imprenditore (art. 19 c.1 cpi) o che abbia da subito progetti di cessione a terzi che lo usino imprenditorialmente. C’è dottrina divergente sul punto (in Italia).
Potrebbe infatti parlarsi di uso <simulato>, che non vale l’uso <effettivo> chiesto dalla norma per evitare la decadenza.
Altro profilo interessante è quello dell’applicazione della malafede al caso in esame e cioè di chi lo chiede senza intenzione di usarlo ma al tempo stesso senza intenzione di ledere uno specifo concorrente. Il concetto di malafede infatti è di solito usato con riferimento a casi di intento lesivo verso soggetti determinati: il che non pare ricorresse nel caso Bansky o comunque bisognerebbe ragionarci.
Potrebbe in sintesi considerarsi una altra soluzione: attendere il quinquennio, ravvisandosi un uso solo simulato, invece che applicare subito la nullità per deposito in malafede (oppure -nel diritto italiano- dichiarare la nullità per violazione dell’art. 19 c.1: solo che nell’elenco di cause di nullità di cui all’art. 25 cpi, probabilmente tassativo, non è prevista, essendo prevista solo quella riferita al c.2 dell’art. 19 -malafade appunto- , per cui questa via pare preclusa)