Gemeenschapsmerk – Nietigverklaring van beschikking R 1967/2010-2 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 23 juni 2011, waarbij is verworpen het beroep tegen de beslissing van de onderzoeker houdende weigering van inschrijving van het woordmerk „INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD” voor waren van de klassen 7, 9, 10 en 12.
Het beroep wordt verworpen. Het woordmerk “INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD” is een reclameslogan. Voor reclameslogans geldt dat er een relatief laag niveau van oplettendheid en bewustzijn is. Verder dient te worden opgemerkt dat het teken geen onderscheidend vermogen heeft.
25 In any event, assuming that the Board of Appeal erred in not taking professionals into account for the goods in Class 9, such an error is of no consequence, because it is apparent from the case-law that, despite a generally high level of awareness of a general public composed of professionals, that level can be relatively low when it comes to purely promotional indications, which well-informed consumers do not see as decisive (see, to that effect, REAL PEOPLE, REAL SOLUTIONS, cited in paragraph 15 above, paragraph 24). As the Board of Appeal noted, without being challenged by the applicant, the mark applied for is a promotional slogan.
33 It must be added that, even as a promotional slogan, the sign INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD cannot be regarded as having distinctive character.
56 In the present case, it must be noted that the Board of Appeal referred to the lack of renown of the mark applied for as the final argument of its assessment, before concluding that the mark applied for lacked distinctive character. It must also be pointed out that, at paragraph 26 of the contested decision, that is before addressing the renown of the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal had already concluded that that mark would not be perceived by the general public as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods referred to. The applicant cannot therefore maintain that the Board of Appeal ascribed decisive importance to the lack of renown of the mark applied for.
Lees het arrest hier.
↧
IEPT20130606, GEU, Delphi Technologies v BHIM
↧
