3D eXam beschrijvend
Gerecht EU 29 maart 2012, zaak T-242/11 (Kaltenbach & Voigt tegen BHIM)
Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. De internationale inschrijving van het woordbeeldmerk "3D eXam" voor "dental X-ray examination in 3D" wordt geweigerd door de onderzoeker vanwege het beschrijvende karakter van het teken. Het beroep wordt door de kamer van beroep verworpen. De aangevoerde middelen: de oudere nationale inschrijvingen worden (ten onrechte) niet in aanmerking genomen. Het merk is niet louter beschrijvend en het heeft onderscheidend vermogen. Het relevante publiek herkent de commerciële herkomst van het teken.
Het Gerecht EU oordeelt dat de combinatie van "3D" en "eXam" voor de 3D weergave van röntgenfoto's voor een medische beoordeling, beschrijvend is. Het Gemeenschaps(merken)recht is een autonoom systeem en daarom - kort gezegd - doen de eerdere nationale registraties er niet toe. De klacht wordt afgewezen.
Beschrijvend karakter
31 Since the goods covered by the mark applied for are ‘X-ray apparatus for dental purposes’, it is clear that dentists confronted with such apparatus identified by the sign 3D eXam will assign to the word element ‘exam’ the meaning that it has in a medical context.32 The applicant’s argument that several mental steps are required in order to grasp the message that ‘3D eXam’ refers to a three‑dimensional dental X-ray examination is not convincing. In that regard, it is sufficient to note that the descriptive nature of the sign applied for must be assessed in relation to specific goods rather than in the abstract.
33 Nor does the applicant’s argument that the sign applied for contains the capital letter ‘X’ affect the Board of Appeal’s conclusion. The Board of Appeal was right to observe that the capital letter ‘X’ only reinforces the descriptive nature of the sign by denoting the fact that the 3D examination is carried out through X‑rays.
Eerdere registraties in Duitsland, Japan en de VS:
44 It is sufficient to recall in that regard, as the Board of Appeal stated, that the Community trade mark regime is an autonomous legal system with its own objectives which are peculiar to it; it applies independently of any national system (Case T‑32/00 Messe München v OHIM (electronica) [2000] ECR II‑3829, paragraph 47; see, to that effect, judgment of 21 January 2009 in Case T‑399/06 giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY), not published in the ECR, paragraph 46). Accordingly, the registrability or protectability of a sign as a Community trade mark is to be assessed on the basis of the relevant Community legislation alone. Consequently, neither OHIM nor, as the case may be, the Courts of the European Union are bound by decisions adopted in a Member State, or a third country, finding a sign to be registrable as a national trade mark. That is so even if such a decision was adopted in a country belonging to the linguistic area in which the word mark in question originated (see, to that effect, Case T‑471/07 Wella v OHIM (TAME IT) [2009] ECR II‑377, paragraph 35).
Op andere blogs:
Marques.org (general court now in 3d Exam)
