Il Trib. UE conferma il rigetto della domanda di registrazione per un marchio di colore (rosso giallo nero) e di posizone, applicato a macchine agrigole (Trib. UE 11.0.2024, . Joined Cases T‑361/23 to T‑364/23, Väderstad Holding AB c, EUIPO).
Riporto qui uno dei quattro azionati:
Segnalo solo uno dei motivi di rigetto: il fatto che i detti colori svolgono funzione di sicurezza e segnalazione (“the Board of Appeal found that the signalling effect of the colours red and yellow was of particular importance for the goods at issue, for example at the time when they were used in accordance with their purpose, when they were ‘parked’ or ‘on the road’. It stated that although the colour yellow was more easily perceived in low-light conditions, the colour red was particularly eye-catching during the day and was frequently used for safety purposes on all types of equipment in various sectors, including the agricultural sector. Furthermore, according to the Board of Appeal, the colour black, combined with the colour yellow, creates a contrast and thus improves visibility. As regards the safety function, the Board of Appeal also took into account the presence, on the goods at issue, of the combination of the colours yellow and black in the form of a banal rectangle which further improves visibility. The Board of Appeal found that the combination of the colours red, yellow and black served a safety or signalling function“: § 56.)
L’istante fa presente che ciò non rientra tra i motivi espressi di nullità del marchio secondo la giurisprudenza UE, § 57.
Da noi non rientra espressamente nell’art. 13.1 (forse però nell’inciso finale alla lett. b): “o altre arattreristiche del prodotto”), nè nei motivi di invalidità per quelli di forma ex art. 9 (qui forse si potrebbe farli rientrare nelle lettere a opppure b-).
Il T. rigetta.
(segnalazione di Marcel Pemsel in IPKat).
