Merkenrechten van de mens (3)
EHRM, Grote Kamer, 11 January 2007. Beroep in de zaak Anheuser-Busch Inc. V. Portugal, no. 73049/01.
Het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens heeft gisteren de enigszins geruchtmakende eerder beslissing van dat zelfde hof weer, gedeeltelijk, ongedaan gemaakt. Eerder oordeelde een kamer van het hof dat een aanvraag voor een merkregistratie slechts een voorwaardelijk recht is en alleen een geregistreerd merk als 'eigendom' in de zin van dit artikel kan worden aangemerkt, mits het geen inbreuk op de rechten van derden maakt. Van eigendom i.c. dan ook geen sprake.
De Grote Kamer van het EHRM stelt in de uitspraak van gisteren echter dat ook een depot of aanvraag voor een merkregistratie valt onder het begrip eigendom van artikel 1, Protocol 1 van het Verdrag tot Bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens (“Bescherming van eigendom. Iedere natuurlijke of rechtspersoon heeft recht op het ongestoord genot van zijn eigendom”).
De Grote Kamer stelt daartoe dat:
“72. In the light of the aforementioned decisions, the Grand Chamber agrees with the Chamber's conclusion that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable to intellectual property as such. It must now examine whether this conclusion also applies to mere applications for the registration of a trade mark..
76. (…)With this in mind, the Court takes due note of the bundle of financial rights and interests that arise upon an application for the registration of a trade mark. It agrees with the Chamber that such applications may give rise to a variety of legal transactions, such as a sale or licence agreement for consideration, and possess – or are capable of possessing – a substantial financial value. With regard to the Government's submission that dealings in respect of applications for the registration of a mark are of negligible or symbolic value only, it is noted that in a market economy, value depends on a number of factors and it is impossible to assert at the outset that the assignment of an application for the registration of a trade mark will have no financial value. In the instant case, as the applicant company was not slow to point out, the mark in question possessed a definite financial value on account of its international renown.
78. (…) These elements taken as a whole suggest that the applicant company's legal position as an applicant for the registration of a trade mark came within Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as it gave rise to interests of a proprietary nature. It is true that the registration of the mark – and the greater protection it afforded – would only become final if the mark did not infringe legitimate third-party rights, so that, in that sense, the rights attached to an application for registration were conditional. Nevertheless, when it filed its application for registration, the applicant company was entitled to expect that it would be examined under the applicable legislation if it satisfied the other relevant substantive and procedural conditions. The applicant company therefore owned a set of proprietary rights – linked to its application for the registration of a trade mark – that were recognised under Portuguese law, even though they could be revoked under certain conditions. This suffices to make Article 1 of Protocol No 1 applicable in the instant case and to make it unnecessary for the Court to examine whether the applicant company could claim to have had a “legitimate expectation”.”
Voor Anheuser-Busch maakt dat in dit geval echter niet zoveel uit. “In the light of the foregoing, the Court therefore concludes that the Supreme Court's (Portugal) judgment in the instant case did not constitute interference with the applicant company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.”
