nullità del marchio per carenza di novità

Marchio valido se riferito a prodotti/servizi identici ma con segno uguale solo nella parte non distintiva

Si consideri il marchio successivo:

Si considerino ora le due anteriorità della società Tour de France:

Ebbene, per il Tribunale UE 12 June 2024, T-604/22, soc. Tour de France c. EUIPO –FitX Beteiligungs GmbH, non c’è confondibilità, nonostasnte la rinomanza dei segni opposti come anteriori:

<<62 In the present case, the Board of Appeal concluded, in paragraph 100 of the contested decision, that, in view of the clear differences between the rights at issue, a likelihood of confusion could be safely ruled out, despite the identity and similarity of the goods and services in question and the enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier rights for the services in respect of the organisation of cycling competitions in Class 41.

63 The applicant disputes that assessment, submitting that, in the light of the fact that the earlier rights enjoy enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use or even an exceptional reputation, that the rights at issue are similar on account of the identity of the first part ‘tour de’, and that the goods and services in question are identical or very similar, the relevant public may believe that those goods and services come from the same undertaking or, at the very least, from economically linked undertakings.

64 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

65 In that regard, it must be held that, in the context of a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, as a result of the low degree of distinctiveness of the only common element ‘tour de’, and of the low degree of similarity between the rights [tra i concetti evocati, semmai, giammai tra diritti] at issue, the relevant public will not confuse those rights, despite the identity or similarity of the goods and services in question and the enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier rights for the services in respect of the organisation of cycling competitions in Class 41. In that context, the error of assessment made by the Board of Appeal in that it found that there was no conceptual similarity between the rights at issue, which is apparent from paragraph 50 above, has no bearing on the outcome of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

66 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009>>.

Altro caso europeo di marchio nullo per assenza di novità

marchio sub iudice: COPAL TREE (denominativo) per alimenti e bevande

Anteriorità opposta (merceologicamente sovrapponibile):

Registrazine nenegata nei due gradi amministrativi.

Decide confermando Trib. UIE 28/09/2022, T-572/21, Copal Tree Brands, Inc. c. EUIPO+1 .

Elemento predmoinante (confermto dal T.):

” 25 In paragraph 41 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal took the view that the earlier mark consisted of two co-dominant elements and that both the figurative element and the word ‘compal’ were distinctive and would attract the attention of the relevant public. It stated that the figurative element, because of its size and eye-catching graphic design, did not play a secondary or merely descriptive role within the mark. Nonetheless, in the Board of Appeal’s view, the word element of the earlier mark plays a ‘somewhat more important’ role within that mark, given that it is the only element of that mark that can be pronounced. As regards the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal took the view that it was also composed of two co-dominant elements, namely the words ‘copal’ and ‘tree’, but that it was to the first word, namely ‘copal’, that the relevant public would pay more attention.

26 In addition, the Board of Appeal was of the opinion, in paragraph 42 of the contested decision, that the signs at issue were both fully distinctive and that neither the figurative element of the earlier mark nor the word ‘tree’ of the mark applied for could be regarded as weakly distinctive elements merely referring to the possible ecological characteristics of the food products at issue”.

Somiglianza visiva di medio grado, § 41, e così quella fonetica, § 47 .

Molto simile invece è l’aspetto fonetico, § 56.

Stanti questi presupposti, difficile evitare il giuidizio di confondibilità, che infatti arriva:

<< 61 In that regard, first, as regards the similarity of the signs at issue, it should be noted that, as stated in paragraphs 41, 47 and 56 above, the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in finding that those signs were visually and phonetically similar to an average degree and conceptually similar to a high degree. Accordingly, contrary to what the applicant claims, those similarities are not too weak.

62 Secondly, as regards the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the parties do not dispute that it must be regarded as normal, as the Board of Appeal found.

63 Thirdly, as noted in paragraphs 20 to 22 above, the goods and services at issue are in part identical and in part similar and the relevant public will have an average level of attention.

64 In the light of all those factors, the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion.

65 In the light of the foregoing, the single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without there being any need to rule on the admissibility of the head of claim seeking annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision of 2 June 2020.>>

Sulla confondibilità tra marchi figurativo-denominativi

marchio posteriore (quello sub iudice) NB: In the application for registration, the applicant claimed the following colours: orange, red, silver, black and grey, § 4.

anteriorità fatta valere dall’opponente ex Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Merceologicamente sono largamente sovrapponibili (o comunqUe vicini).

Al registrante va male in sede amministrativa.

Gli va male anche davanti al Trib. UE, sent. 28.09.2022, T-454/21, G-Core Innovations Sàrl c. EUIPO+1.

Elemento dominante è la lettera G << 40 It follows that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding, in paragraphs 35, 36 and 41 of the contested decision, that the dominant element of the mark applied for was the figurative element representing a letter ‘G’, that the word element ‘core’ had an average degree of distinctiveness for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public and, lastly, that the element ‘labs’ was weakly distinctive both for the English-speaking and non-English-speaking parts of the relevant public.>>

Bassa somiglianza visiva, § 47.

Profilo fonetico: << 54 Therefore, in the light of the presence of the word element ‘core’ in both the signs at issue, its position in the pronunciation of the mark applied for and all the other phonetic elements of which it consists, which are liable to create impressions of phonetic differences between the marks at issue, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the signs at issue were similar to at least a lower than average degree.>>

Vicinanza concettuale (interessnte la distinzione a seconda della lingua): << 59 Therefore, having regard, first of all, to the lack of conceptual meaning produced by the figurative element and the element ‘G’ of the mark applied for, next, to the meaning conveyed by the element ‘core’ for the English-speaking public and its lack of meaning for the non-English-speaking public and, lastly, to the meaning, for the relevant English-speaking and non-English-speaking public, of the element ‘labs’ in the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the marks at issue were conceptually, first, dissimilar for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public and, secondly, similar to an average degree for the English-speaking part of the relevant public.>>

Giudizio complessivo (non facilissimo, stanti i presupposti di ridotta vicinanza e elevata attenzione del consumatore, ma con soprapponilità merceologica). << 73 Therefore, having regard, in particular, to the identity and similarity of the goods and services at issue, the low degree of visual similarity, the lower than average degree of phonetic similarity, the average conceptual similarity for the English-speaking part of the relevant public and, lastly, the lack of conceptual similarity between the marks at issue for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public, offset, inter alia, by the existence of an average degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark in respect of that public, the Board of Appeal was right to find that there was a likelihood of confusion both for the English-speaking and non-English-speaking parts of the relevant public and that notwithstanding the degree of attention, varying from average to high, which that public may display in the choice of goods and services at issue.

74 In the light of all of the foregoing, the single plea in law of the action, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, must be rejected.>>

Validità di marchio costituito da lettera “W” e sua confondibilità col successivo marchio in cui la lettera è inserita in marchio complesso

La Starwood Hotels & Resorts Wordlwide, grande catena titolare di strutture alberghiere in tutto il mondo, è titolare di svariati marchi rappresentanti la lettera dell’alfabeto <W>.

Si accorge che altra azienda usa marchio simile pur se complesso , facendola precedere dalla parola <La Bottega>, in caratere più piccolo e con sovrapposizione merceologica.

Il Trib. di Roma con sent. 203/2021 del 07.01.2021, RG 36301/2016 accerta la validità del marchio attoreo, confemando un orientamento ormai consolidato (c’erano state opinioni opposte in passato): la lettera singola è tutelabile , almeno astrattametne (cioè tipologicamente). E ciò anche senza particolari specifiche grafiche . Del resto la legge non è equivoca sul punto (art. 7/1 prima parte, cpi).

Anzi, è marchio forte, dice il Trib..

Nello stesso senso ricorda altri precedenti, anche propri (Trib. Roma sez. spec. sent. 9294/2012), cui si può aggiungere Trib. Roma IX sez. 19.01.2015, G.A.D.I., 2016-XLV, § 6354, p. 171, massime 2 e 4 (sempre concernente il medesimo attore e il medesimo marchio <W>).

Trascura però di osservare che ciò non sottrae il marchio al giudizio sulla sua distintività in concreto.

Anzi è dubbio se si possa parlare di accertamento di validità in proposito, visto che il convenuto non ne ha contestato la validità (probabilmente è però esatto , se lo si ritiene un presupposto logico dei capi di sentenza accertativi della nullità e contraffazione del marchio del convenuto, quindi anche esso coperto da giudicato).

L’attrice aveva chiesto la dichiarazione sia di nullità che di contraffazione, la prima con inibitoria ex art. 21.3 cpi. Quest’ultima è domanda non fondata , dato che la disposizione parla di nullità che comporti <<illiceità dell’uso>> e cioè ex art. 14/1.a-b (forse anche lettere c.bis segg., ma non la lettera c).

Un’inibitoria specifica poi non aggiunge nulla alla dichiarazione di nullità in termini di doverosità, dato che il divieto è già posto dal cit. art .21/3 cpi: però serve per agganciarla ad un’astreinte.

Nega il danno da lucro cessante (l’attrice aveva chiesto royalties al 10% come prezzo del consenso) dato che anche la condanna ex art. 125/2 cpu presuppone che un qualche danno sia provato. Liquida invece <<in via equitativa un risarcimento del danno emergente correlata all’incidenza negativa della contraffazione sulla unicità e sulla capacità distintiva del marchio ‘W’ contraffatto dalle convenute, che si quantifica in euro 10.000,00 alla data della decisione>> (motivazione un pò vaga).

Da notare che viene negato il rapporto di concorrnzialità (v. § 15). Se ne deduce che la violazione di un marchio altrui è possibile anche da parte di chi tecnicamente (e al momento) non ne è concorrente: cosa non strana, dato che solo il non uso per cinque anni penalizza chi non utilizzi il marchio per i prodotti per cui lo ha registrato.