IE-diensten

GvEA, 23 September 2009, zaak T-409/07, Helge B. Cohausz tegen OHIM / José Izquierdo Faces

Gemeenschapsmerk. Onsuccesvolle nietigheidsactie tegen beelmerk ACOPAT o.g.v. ouder nationale woordmerken COPAT (voor o.a. services of a patent lawyer). Geen normaal gebruik.

75. In addition, the applicant did not claim that it was impossible to produce other documentary evidence. Even if the particular nature of industrial property related services is taken into account, it should be noted that the applicant was able to produce invoices relating to those services and containing the ‘copat’ element, but only in relation to the period after 12 August 2002, that is to say, after the end of the relevant period (28 January 2001). Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that those services were sold under the earlier mark COPAT prior to that date. Moreover, at the hearing, the applicant acknowledged that the decision to introduce the ‘copat’ element was taken only after the relevant period, that is to say, after the Community trade mark acopat had been published.

76. Accordingly, even if the extent of the use had been proved for the period between 6 April 1999 and 5 April 2004, which partly overlaps the relevant period, a global assessment of all the abovementioned documents discloses that any minimal use before 29 January 2001 could not be regarded as sufficient in the economic sector concerned to create a share in the market for the services protected by the earlier marks and thereby to prove that the earlier marks had been put to genuine use during the relevant period.

Lees het arrest hier.