Nietigheidsactie tegen Dr. Martens afgewezen

BBIE 25 april 2023, IEF 21391; Zaaknr. 3000256 (Airwair tegen Van Haren) Het Benelux Bureau voor Intellectuele Eigendom (BBIE) heeft uitspraak gedaan over de nietigheidsactie die Van Haren heeft ingesteld tegen Airwair, de merkhouder van de Dr. Martens-schoen. De nietigheidsactie betrof de registratie van Airwair's gele 'Yellow-Welt-Stitch'-merk (YWS-merk); de kenmerkende gele stiksels tussen het bovenleer en de schoenzool bij Dr. Martens-schoenen. Deze actie was door Van Haren gelijktijdig ingesteld met een actie tegen het 'Yellow-Stitch-On-Black-Welt'-merk (YSBW-merk), zie hiervoor IEF 20660.

Van Haren beweerde dat de gele stiksels geen merk konden vormen, omdat ze geen onderscheidend vermogen zouden hebben en bovendien een gemeenschappelijke aanduiding zijn geworden. Het merk zou tot slot als een vormmerk zijn geregistreerd, waardoor de beoogde bescherming niet zou rusten op de gele kleur van de stiksels.

Airwair verdedigde zich door te stellen dat zij wereldwijde licentiehouder zijn van het Dr. Martens-merk en dat de gele stiksels worden gebruikt sinds de eerste Dr. Martens-schoen in 1960. De gele stiksels zijn sindsdien een onderscheidend en bekend kenmerk geworden voor het merk en worden wereldwijd door beroemdheden gedragen.

Het BBIE oordeelt dat de gele stiksels van Dr. Martens voldoende onderscheidend vermogen hebben om als merk te worden beschermd. De gele stiksels zijn een identificerend kenmerk van de schoenen geworden en kunnen daarom worden beschouwd als een geldig merk in het register. Het langdurige en intensieve gebruik van de gele stiksels in het ontwerp van de schoen heeft hieraan bijgedragen.

Het BBIE concludeert dat Van Haren niet heeft kunnen aantonen dat YWS-merk ongeldig is en wijst daarom de nietigheidsactie af.

52. The Office considers that acquired distinctiveness before the date ofthe application for a declaration of invalidity has convincingly been proven by the defendant. The evidence provided shows Dr. Martens prominent presence on the Benelux market fordecades. The evidence also shows the consistent use ofthe contested trademark. It is clearly shown that the yellow stitching is widely recognised as the identifying feature of the boots, as is illustrated by the overwhelming amount of press articles that were submitted by the defendant, in which it Is referred to in terms such as "characteristic", "famous", "typical", "striking", "distinctive", "recognlzable", "classic" or"iconic". The status attributed to the stitching in these publications illustrates its position in the market, demonstrating that it is being considered as a sign showing that the boots originate from a particular company. A simple and basically non-distinctive element such as a (coloured) stitching applied to shoes does not easily obtain such a status. This can only be the result of very long and intensive use, extensive marketing and efforts to promote the trademark - in other words, the "ingredients" for acquired distinctiveness.

56. As a preliminary remark, it should be noted that, as the defendant correctly points out, the words "or another characteristic" were added recently, long after the contested trademark was registered. These words must therefore be disregarded, so that these grounds can only relate to the shape and not to other characteristics of the goods7. However, even assuming that the grounds would be applicable to the contested trademark, the Office finds that they must be rejected.

57. Regarding (sub)grounds (i) and (ii), the daimant's reasoning essentially amounts to arguing that the contested trademark is functional since the welt and stltching enables the upper of the lace boot to be durably connected with the sole. The Office agrees with the defendant's counter-argument that one of the essential features of the trademark is the yellow colour of the stitch (for a description see paragraph 2 above) and that the contested mark is in this respect not comparable to the Lego case (paragraph 38 above). The claimant fails to substantiate - and it is also difficult to see - why the yellow stitching results from the nature of the goods or is necessary to obtain a technical result.

58. Regarding (sub)ground (iii), the claimant argues that the appearance of a shoe will play a decisive and important role in the purchase decision. According to the claimant, the current trend prescribes that the stitching of lace boots and footwear is made visible. The look of the Dr. Martens lace boot will be the primary consideration for buying the shoes, which includes the yellow stitching on the welt. Thus, the appearance of the shoes will give substantial value to the goods. The Office agrees that for the goods in question, their visual appearance will undoubtably play a key role in the (potential) consumer's purchase decision. However, what is being claimed by the contested registration is not the visual appearance ofthe shoes, which has been "disclaimed" in the description (paragraph 2 above). The subject matter of the trademark concerns a well-defined element, namely "the yellow stitching on the edge between the upper leather and the shoe sole of a shoe, in the manner as depicted on the graphic representation of the mark". The claimant fails to substantiate - and it is, again, also difficult to see - why this speciffc element would intrinsically, so without taking into account the attraction acquired through the use of the trademark, be attractive to such an extent that it must be considered to give substantial value to the goods.