In languages other than French
Gerecht EU 23 november 2011, zaak T-59/10 (GeeMarc Telecom tegn OHIM/Audioline, inzake AMPLIDECT)
Gemeenschapsmerk. Nietigheidsprocedure gemeenschapswoordmerk AMPLIDECT voor telecom en print (telefoon voor slechthorenden). Absolute weigeringsgrond: beschrijvend karakter, verkrijging van onderscheidend vermogen. Bewijs (aanvullend semantische studie), pas geleverd bij beroepsprocedure is gebruikelijk. Beroep op Benelux-registratie doet er niet toe om te bepalen of merk beschrijvend karakter heeft (EU is eigen rechtssysteem) en het merk heeft geen onderscheidend vermogen gekregen, daartoe is geen bewijs overlegt. Het is niet nodig om te oordelen of het merk beschrijvend is in talen anders dan slechts de Franse taal. Merk wordt vernietigd.
17. Without prejudice to the analysis of the second and third pleas set out below, it is common ground that the documents which the intervener filed for the first time before the Board of Appeal were of such a kind as to shed additional light on the perception which the relevant public has of the terms ‘ampli’ and ‘dect’, taken separately or combined to form one single word.
67 In view of the foregoing, it must be held, as was also found by the Board of Appeal, that the term ‘amplidect’ is descriptive from the point of view of the relevant public.
68 As it constitutes a sufficient ground for invalidity if the disputed mark is identified as having descriptive character in part of the European Union, it is not necessary to rule on whether the mark may have descriptive character in languages other than French.
69 Moreover, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 26 above, the finding that the mark AMPLIDECT has descriptive character is by itself sufficient for that mark to be regarded as also being devoid of any distinctive character, as the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out in paragraph 33 of the contested decision.
80 Lastly, and more generally, the applicant has failed to submit any form of document, such as a survey or a market study, capable of substantiating in any other way its claim that the mark AMPLIDECT has acquired enhanced distinctiveness with the relevant public.
