3D-vormmerk
Al eerder berichtten wij over de bescherming van 3D-vormmerken, met name die in de vorm van een fles.
In de onderhavige recente kwestie staat de vraag centraal of de 3D-vorm van een bepaalde champagnefles (van Ace of Spades) kan worden beschermd tegen een daarmee overeenstemmende (vorm van een) fles champagne van Munich Accessories.
Conflicterende merken?
De vraag die centraal staat in de uitspraken van het Gerecht in deze decembermaand van 2020 (zaken EU:T:2020:593, EU:T:2020:594, EU:T:2020:595) is met name of de 3D-vormmerken van deze champagneflessen teveel verwarringwekkend overeenstemmen.
De Kamer van Beroep had de oppositie van verzoekster Ace of Spades eerder afgewezen; de merken zouden duidelijk verschillend zijn ten opzichte van de oudere merken.
Verwarringsgevaar
Het Gerecht oordeelt in beroep eerst dat voor verwarringsgevaar gekeken moet worden naar:
[…] the risk that the public may believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion. According to the same case-law, the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, according to the relevant public’s perception of the signs and goods or services in question and taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered.’
Overeenstemming?
In beroep is terecht vastgesteld, zo luidt de uitspraak, dat de verschillende elementen van de flessen moeten worden geanalyseerd en dat er zowel verschillen als punten van overeenstemming bestaan.
Echter ten onrechte is eerder geoordeeld, aldus het Gerecht,
‘that earlier trade marks Nos 1 and 2, on the one hand, and the mark applied for, on the other hand, were dissimilar overall is that it took into account only the differences between them, by failing to take those marks into consideration as a whole when carrying out the global assessment of the similarity between them. Its finding is thus vitiated by an error of assessment, because it is based on the incorrect premiss that the supposedly non-distinctive elements which those marks have in common do not, regardless of their number and the degree of similarity between them and even though they are not categorised as negligible, have any influence on the overall impression created by those marks.'
Kortom, ook de niet-onderscheidende bestanddelen van de flessenmerken zijn weggedacht bij de beoordeling van de overeenstemming, althans het ontbreken daarvan. Vervolgens is geoordeeld dat van verwarringwerkkende overeenstemming aldus ook geen sprake kan zijn. Ook dit is een onjuist, aldus het Gerecht:
'(...) even assuming that those elements are non-distinctive, the Board of Appeal was not entitled to disregard the points of similarity to which they might give rise and conclude that the abovementioned marks were visually dissimilar overall. It should have found that they were visually similar overall. The same conclusion would have had to be reached even if the Board of Appeal had found, as touched on by it, that those elements had very little impact on the overall impression created by those marks. It could nevertheless have differentiated between the degree of overall visual similarity between those marks, by taking into consideration the number of those elements in common, in the light of the number of elements of which the marks under comparison consist, and by taking into consideration whether the combination of those elements was more or less unusual.'
Het aannemen van merkinbreuk op de grond van verwarringsgevaar verplicht volgens deze uitspraak tot het vaststellen van overeenstemming:
‘In that regard, it must be held that, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that earlier trade marks Nos 1 and 2 and the mark applied for were visually dissimilar (…) it erred in finding that they were dissimilar overall and that one of the conditions laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 had not been satisfied. In the light of the fact that those marks are at least visually similar, the Board of Appeal should have carried out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, taking into consideration all of the relevant factors (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 March 2020, EUIPO v Equivalenza Manufactory, C‑328/18 P, EU:C:2020:156, paragraphs 75 and 76), as EUIPO admitted in its reply of 16 June 2020 to the measure of organisation of procedure. In that context, it should also have taken the degree of visual similarity between the signs at issue into consideration (…).
Conclusie over merkinbreuk
Pas als er overeenstemming is, kan merkbescherming worden aangenomen, zo leert deze merkrecht uitspraak. Bij het vaststellen van overeenstemming kunnen, onder omstandigheden, zelf (beweerdelijk) niet-onderscheidende bestanddelen van het merk-teken een rol spelen.
Joost Becker, advocaat merkenrecht