Geografische aanduiding voor Colombiaanse koffie wint nietigheids -en oppositieprocedure

Gerecht EU 18 september 2015, IEF 15268; ECLI:EU:T:2015:647 en ECLI:EU:T:2015:651 (Café de Colombia)
Nietigheidsprocedure. Oudere beschermde geografische aanduiding voor koffie 'Café de Colombia' voeren een procedure tegen Gemeenschapsbeeldmerken COLOMBIANO HOUSE en COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE. De oppositiedivisie weigerde de oppositie, de diensten van klasse 43 (providing food and drink) kwamen niet overeen met de koffie; de kamer van beroep oordeelt dat er een te zwakke link is. Met de producten van klasse 30 voor thee, cacao en suiker is er een voldoende verwarringsrisico. Het Gerecht EU vernietigt de beslissingen (of in zoverre dat het de nietigheidsverklaring was afgewezen).

53      Finally, OHIM contends that, even assuming that Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006 applies directly, the finding that the Board of Appeal erred is not such as to lead to annulment of the contested decision, since the concepts of ‘same class of product’ in Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006 and of ‘comparable products’ in Article 13(1)(a) of that regulation are interpreted in the same way.

54      It is true that it is apparent from the case-law that an error made by the Board of Appeal can lead to the annulment of the contested decision only if it is decisive as to the assessment of that decision. If, in the particular circumstances of the case, an error could not have had a decisive effect on the outcome, the argument based on such an error is nugatory and thus cannot suffice to justify the annulment of the contested decision (see judgment of 9 March 2012 in Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE-SEAL), T‑172/10, EU:T:2012:119, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

55      However, it should be noted that, in support of its opposition, the applicant relied on the application of other situations than that of Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation No 510/2006 relating to the use of a PGI for comparable products. It invoked Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation No 510/2006 relating to the situation where the use of the PGI exploits the reputation of the PGI, Article 13(1)(b) of that regulation relating to the situation of misuse, imitation or evocation of the PGI, and also Article 13(1)(d) of that regulation relating to the situation where the mark applied for is liable to mislead the consumer.

56      Consequently, OHIM’s argument that the concept of ‘same class of product’ and that of ‘comparable goods’ are identical does not relate to all the situations invoked by the applicant in support of its opposition and therefore it cannot be concluded that the Board of Appeal rejected the opposition in respect of all the situations invoked by the applicant.