Achternaam Basile heeft onderscheidend vermogen

Gerecht EU 28 juni 2012, zaak T-133/09 (I Marchi Italiani Srl & Antonio Basile tegen OHIM/Osra SA)
Gerecht EU 28 juni 2012, T-134/09 (Antonio Basile & I Marchi Italiani tegen OHIM/Osra SA) (B. Antonio Basile 1952)

Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht.

In de nietigheidsprocedure vordert Osra A, van I Marchi Italiani Srl en Antonio Basile, de nietigverklaring van het beeldmerk 'B Antonio Basile 1952' (klassen 14, 18 & 25).
Dit omdat Osra SA het gemeenschapsbeeldmerk 'BASILE' heeft gedeponeerd (klasse 25). De nietigheidsafdeling wijst de vordering en nietigverklaring van het gemeenschapsmerk in zijn geheel toe. In de tweede zaak wijst zij de nietigverklaring, met betrekking tot de waren 25, gedeeltelijk toe. Het beroep wordt verworpen. Middel (in beide zaken): geen verwaringsgevaar.

Onderscheidend karakter achternaam Basile
De consument zal vooral de naam Antonio Basile, samengenomen, identificeren met de producten. De naam Basile heeft volgens het Gerecht een niet te verzwakken onderscheidend vermogen voor indiening van een merk voor kleding. Het Gerecht oordeelt dat de achternaam Basile meer onderscheidend vermogen heeft dan de voornaam Antonio.
Gelijkheid merken
Vastgesteld wordt dat de merken een zekere mate van visuele en fonetische overeenstemmig hebben. Het Gerecht stelt vast dat zij begripsmatig overeenstemmen. Beide merken gebruiken de achternaam Basile, waardoor het publiek de waren zal associëren met een persoon met die naam.
Verwarringsgevaar
Omdat er overeenstemming bestaat tussen de merken is er volgens het Gerecht sprake van verwarringsgevaar.

Het Gerecht beveelt dat de namen van de aanvrager Antonio Basile respectievelijk I Marchi Italiani Srl  worden verwijderd uit de lijst van aanvragers en verwerpt het beroep.

Citaten (in beide zaken gelijk)
47 In the present case, first of all, the Board of Appeal stated, in paragraph 24 of the contested decision, on the one hand, that the fact that the surname Basile is very common in Italy has not been proven and, on the other, that that surname is not one of the most common in Italy. The first applicant contests those claims without, however, adducing any evidence to the contrary. In order to challenge the distinctive character of that surname, the applicant states, moreover, that it has been the subject of numerous registrations. However, there is no evidence in the file to prove this, as the evidence adduced for the first time before the Court to that effect was found to be inadmissible (see paragraph 19 above). In addition, the first applicant does not dispute the Board of Appeal’s assessment, in paragraph 32 of the contested decision, that the forename Antonio in the contested mark is very common in Italy.

48 Second, in spite of its claims, the first applicant has not presented any evidence to establish that the forename Antonio and the surname Basile, taken together, identify a well-known person, at least in Italy, and that, taken as a whole, it will therefore be perceived by consumers as a mark which consists of both a forename and surname which identify that person and not as the surname Basile to which other elements have been added, including the forename Antonio.

56 Visually, the stylised capital letter ‘B’, followed by a full stop, which corresponds to the first letter of the surname Basile and is placed above the forename Antonio and the surname Basile, and the element ‘1952’, placed below that name and written in smaller characters, are not sufficiently important elements to counteract the similarity between the marks at issue created by the fact that the most characteristic element of both the contested mark and the earlier trade mark is identical (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 May 2007 in Case T‑137/05 La Perla v OHIM – Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC), not published in the ECR, paragraph 46). Even if the stylised capital letter ‘B’ is bigger than the other elements of the contested mark, it does not constitute a significant addition to the element ‘basile’ in so far as it corresponds to its first letter or to its monogram. Likewise, in the light of its position in the contested mark and its smaller size, the element ‘1952’, which could be perceived as being a year, has a subsidiary position in the contested mark and does not attract the consumer’s attention as much as the other elements of that mark, although that does not mean that it is insignificant.

57 The fact that the element ‘basile’ is preceded by the element ‘antonio’ does nothing to invalidate that conclusion. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, while it is true that consumers generally take more note of a mark’s beginning than of its ending, that argument cannot apply in all cases (judgment of 16 May 2007 in Case T‑158/05 Trek Bicycle v OHIM – Audi (ALLTREK), not published in the ECR, paragraph 70). In the present case, as was stated in paragraph 47 above, Antonio is a forename which is very common in Italy and is therefore less distinctive than the surname Basile. Accordingly, in spite of its position at the beginning of the contested mark, the element ‘antonio’ cannot attract the consumer’s attention more than the element ‘basile’.

58 Phonetically, even if the contested mark, composed of six syllables ‘an, ‘to’, ‘nio’, ‘ba’, ‘si’ and ‘le’, is longer than the earlier trade mark, composed of three syllables ‘ba’, ‘si’ and ‘le’, the majority of the syllables of the contested mark and all of the syllables of the earlier trade mark, that is to say those that correspond to the surname Basile, are identical. Contrary to what the first applicant claims, the differences between the marks at issue in respect of the addition, in the contested mark, of the capital letter ‘B’ and the element ‘1952’ to the forename Antonio and to the surname Basile do not call into question the fact that there is a degree of phonetic similarity in so far as, on the one hand, in principle, the capital letter ‘B’, on its own, will not be pronounced by consumers, who will perceive it to be the first letter or monogram of that surname, and, on the other, as was stated in paragraph 56 above, the element ‘1952’, which could be perceived as being a year by the relevant public and which has a secondary position in the contested mark, is therefore, for that reason, unlikely to be pronounced by the relevant public after the phrase ‘antonio basile’. Moreover, as was stated in the previous paragraph, given its low degree of distinctiveness, the fact that the element ‘antonio’ is placed before the element ‘basile’ is not sufficient to counteract the similarities between the two marks.

63 As was stated in paragraph 39 above, the identity and the similarity of the goods covered by the marks at issue are not called into question. Moreover, as is clear from paragraph 61 above, the marks at issue are similar.

64 The Board of Appeal was therefore right to find, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.