Een onsje rautaruukki alstublieft

GvEA, 19 November 2008, zaak T-269/06, Rautaruukki Oyj tegen OHIM (Nederlandse vertaling nog niet beschikbaar).

Gemeenschapsmerken. Terechte weigering beschrijvend gemeenschapswoordmerk RAUTARUUKKI (Fins voor metaalwerken) voor klasse 6, metaalwerken.  Aanvullend bewijsmateriaal ter ondersteuning van inburgering te laat ingediend.

“39. The applicant points out that, after the Second World War, the Republic of Finland was ordered to pay heavy war indemnities to the former Soviet Union, consisting mainly of vehicles and metal construction goods. Since that had the effect of limiting resources of steel and metal raw materials, the Finnish State decided, at the end of the 1950s, to set up a State-owned company with the task of producing the steel required by the metal industry. The applicant was accordingly established in 1960 and is generally known to Finnish consumers and traders.

(…) 49. First, it must be pointed out that, for the reasons given in paragraphs 19 to 22 above, the affidavits from the Finnish Central Chamber of Commerce and from all local chambers of commerce (except one) and from 92 companies, and the Finnish registration of the word mark RAUTARUUKKI for the goods in question in the present case, cannot be regarded as admissible."

"50. The applicant cannot claim that, by taking into consideration only the evidence submitted to OHIM, it has proved that distinctiveness has been acquired through use. It must be held that, as pointed out by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 20 of the contested decision, that evidence is clearly insufficient to establish distinctiveness through use.

51. (…) The Board of Appeal’s inference, at paragraph 20 of the contested decision, was therefore correct, namely that while that evidence was appropriate to establish the use of the mark applied for in Finland and its registration in the Trade and Companies Registers, it did not, on the other hand, establish distinctiveness in consequence of use within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 and did not permit the inference that the relevant public in Finland associates the sign RAUTARUUKKI uniquely with the applicant’s goods falling within Class 6.”

Lees het arrest hier.