Sobere grafische middelen trekken niet de aandacht
Gerecht EU 11 juli 2012, zaak T-559/10 (Laboratoire Garnier tegen OHIM)
Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. De aanvraag van het gemeenschapsbeeldmerk "natural beauty" wordt door de onderzoeker afgewezen, en het beroep wordt verworpen. Als middel wordt aangevoerd dat er ten onrechte is geconcludeerd dat er absolute weigeringsgronden van toepassing zijn vanwege het beschrijvend karakter van het merk.
Het relevante publiek is de gemiddelde Engelstalige consument en de woorden 'natural' en 'beauty' hebben een duidelijke betekenis in de Engelse taal. De soberheid van de gebruikte grafische middelen zorgt er niet voor dat deze banale grafische elementen niet de aandacht van het relevante publiek kunnen afleiden van de beschrijvende woorden 'natural beauty'.
Het Gerecht EU wijst de klacht af.
20 In addition, the applicant does not dispute the fact that the verbal elements of the mark applied for consist of two English words, ‘natural’ and ‘beauty’, as was noted by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 12 of the contested decision. Consequently, the relevant public, by reference to which the absolute ground for refusal must be examined, is the average English‑speaking consumer, as the Board of Appeal correctly found at paragraph 11 of the contested decision, without being contradicted by the applicant.
25 It must, however, be noted that, as the Board of Appeal correctly found at paragraph 16 of the contested decision, the stylisation of the mark applied for is limited to the addition of some common graphical features. In that regard, the Board of Appeal found that the use of the ordinary typeface was banal, while the fact that both words were written one over the other and that the ‘b’ within ‘beauty’ was slightly bigger than the rest of that word could not divert the consumer’s attention from the clear message conveyed by the descriptive words.
26 It must be pointed out that the graphical elements of the mark applied for consist, firstly, of the presentation of the element ‘natural’ placed above the element ‘beauty’ and, secondly, of the use of a certain typeface, the size used for the letter ‘b’ being different from that used for the other letters. However, it must be noted that those graphical elements are limited to the presentation of the two word elements and result from the use of common graphical methods. The typeface applied is banal and, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the presentation, one above the other, of the two word elements cannot be regarded as unusual. Furthermore, the fact that the size of the letter ‘b’ is larger than that of the other letters of the word ‘beauty’ is barely perceptible, as is the position of the word ‘natural’, which is intended, somehow, to integrate that word into the element ‘beauty’. Those graphical elements cannot, as the applicant wrongly claims, give the impression of a logo, and those facts, by themselves, cannot confer a distinctive character on the sign applied for.
27 In view of the sobriety of the graphical means used, it must be held that, as found by the Board of Appeal at paragraph 16 of the contested decision, those banal graphical elements cannot divert the attention of the relevant public from the descriptive message resulting, in the present case, from the expression ‘natural beauty’.
Op andere blogs:
Alicante News (B. General Court, case T-559/10)
