Creeper-model Puma openbaargemaakt door Instagram posts Rihanna

Gerecht van de Europese Unie 6 maart 2024,IEF 21923,IEFBe 3719; ECLI:EU:T:2024:147 (Puma tegen EUIPO) In deze uitspraak van het Gerecht Eerste Aanleg van het Hof van Justitie kom het model van de Creeper-schoen van Puma SE aan bod. Bij beslissing van 19 maart 2021 heeft de nietigheidsafdeling van het EUIPO de vordering tot nietigverklaring toegewezen, het beroep tegen deze beslissing is door de kamer van beroep in zijn geheel verworpen. De vraagt ligt voor of het model van Puma 12 maanden voor het modeldepot openbaar is gemaakt door het dragen en tonen door Rihanna, zangeres en op dat moment tevens Creative Director van Puma.

Het Gerecht oordeelt dat de vaststelling van de kamer van beroep dat het model eerder is openbaar gemaakt, geen beroepsfout bevat. De berichten op Rihanna’s Instagram account die tonen dat zij witte sportschoenen draagt, maken het mogelijk om met het blote oog of door het vergroten van die foto's, alle kenmerken van het eerdere ontwerp vanuit verschillende hoeken te identificeren. De betreffende foto's zijn niet zo wazig of klein dat de details in die foto's niet kunnen worden onderscheiden.

De uitspraak geeft niet alleen verdieping aan de in acht te nemen regels ten aanzien van welk bewijs in aanmerking kan worden genomen om prior art aan te tonen, maar ook omtrent hoe dat bewijs in relatie tot elkaar staat. Daarnaast geeft de uitspraak ook regels over hoe te beoordelen of bepaald bewijs redelijkerwijs ter kennis van de relevante cirkels kan zijn gekomen.

35. In the present case, the Board of Appeal, in paragraphs 37 to 45 of the contested decision, found, in essence, first, that the evidence adduced by the intervener was sufficient to demonstrate the events constituting disclosure of the prior design, and, secondly, that the applicant had, for its part, failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that the circumstances of the case prevented the circles specialised in the sector concerned from becoming aware of the publication of the prior design. On the basis of those assessments, the Board of Appeal found, by way of conclusion, in paragraph 45 of the contested decision, that the prior design had been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

36. In accordance with the provisions and case-law principles set out in paragraphs 27 to 34 above and in the light of the material in the file before the Court, that finding of the Board of Appeal, which is not vitiated by an error of assessment, must be upheld.

41. The posts showing Rihanna wearing white trainers, submitted as Annexes IV to VI and XVII and XVIII to the application for a declaration of invalidity (see paragraph 4, first and second indents, above), which are all images taken from an Instagram account named ‘badgalriri’, make it possible to identify, with the naked eye or by enlarging those photos, all the features of the prior design from various angles.

42. More specifically, the front perspective and the side views of the design illustrated in those images make it possible to identify a sports shoe with a number of lines and holes along the upper, a closure of seven holes with thick laces and a flat and thick, vertically striped sole. All the other features of the prior design are also perceptible. In particular, the word element is shown in the first image set out in the first indent of paragraph 4 above and in the second photo set out in the second indent of paragraph 4 above.

51. The photos in question are not so blurred or small that the details in those photos cannot be discerned. In addition, it is common knowledge that, as early as 2014, a photo shown on Instagram could be the subject of a screenshot – inter alia on a mobile phone – which could, in turn, be zoomed in on.

53. Simply on account of the fact that, in December 2014, Rihanna was a world-famous pop star, it should be observed that both her fans and the circles specialised in the fashion sector had, at that time, developed a particular interest in the shoes that she wore on the day on which the contract under which the star became the applicant’s creative director was signed. That being the case, it is perfectly reasonable to take the view that a not insignificant proportion of the people who were interested in music or in Rihanna herself, including her clothing, in December 2014 viewed the photos in question closely in order to discern from those photos the appearance of the shoes that the star wore, thus recognising the features of the prior design.