Teken van meer dan plaatstelijke betekenis, moet meer hebben dan alleen een geografisch-lokale betekenis

EUIPO Cancellation Division 23 januari 2017, IEF 16549; IEFbe 2071 (Petrogas Gas-Systems tegen Petrogas International) Merkenrecht. De administratieve nietigheidsactie is gericht tegen een Uniemerk, maar wordt afgewezen. Ze wordt geïnitieerd op grond van een niet-geregistreerd merk (teken van meer dan plaatselijke betekenis) én op grond van kwade trouw. ‘More than mere local significance’ is more than just a geographical examination. The economic impact of the use of the sign must also be evaluated. De verzoeker slaagt niet in het bewijs. De vordering tot doorhaling wordt afgewezen.

a) Prior use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance. (...)

Has the applicant succeeded in proving prior use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance of the trade name?
(...) Furthermore, the Court of Justice clarified that the significance of a sign cannot be a function of the mere geographical extent of its protection, since, if that were the case, a sign whose protection is not merely local could, by virtue of that fact alone, prevent registration of a EU trade mark, even though the sign might be used only to a very limited extent in the course of trade. The sign must be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade and its geographical extent must not be merely local, which implies, where the territory in which that sign is protected may be regarded as other than local, that the sign must be used in a substantial part of that territory (judgment of 29/03/2011, C-96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 158-159).

(...)
Therefore, the criterion of ‘more than mere local significance’ is more than just a geographical examination. The economic impact of the use of the sign must also be evaluated. Consideration must be given, and the evidence must relate, to these elements:
a) the intensity of use (sales made under the sign)
b) the length of use
c) the spread of the goods (location of the customers)
d) the advertising under the sign and the media used for that advertising, including
the distribution of the advertising.

Conclusion
Given the cumulative nature of these conditions, where a sign, such as that at hand, does not satisfy one of those conditions, the application for invalidity based on the existence of non-registered trade marks or any other sign used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR cannot succeed.
In view of the above, the application for invalidity is not well founded under Article 53(1)(c) EUTMR in connection with Article 8(4) EUTMR.