Voldaan aan 'restitutio in integrum'- regel
Gerecht EU 28 juni 2012, zaak T-314/10 (Constellation Brands, Inc. tegen OHIM (COOK'S))
Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. In de vernietigingsprocedure vordert Constellation Brands Inc. vernietiging van de beslissing van de eerste kamer van beroep van het OHIM, waarin gemeenschapsmerkinschrijving van het woordmerk 'COOK'S' nietig wordt bevonden. De afdeling wijst het verzoek tot herstel in de vorige toestand af en bevestigt de nietigverklaring van de gemeenschapsmerkinschrijving, het beroep wordt verworpen. Middel: feiten onjuist beoordeeld; niet noodzakelijke zorgvuldigheid betracht.
Verzoekster heeft niet aangegeven waarom en in welke mate het OHIM de zorgvuldigheidsnormen te buiten zou zijn gegaan. Het Gerecht oordeelt dat de kamer van beroep heeft voldaan aan de eisen die nodig zijn om de zorgvuldigheid te betrachten. Met betrekking tot de onjuiste feiten beoordeling, beslist het Gerecht dat hier ook geen sprake van is. De nietigheid van de gemeenschapsmerkaanvraag wordt door het Gerecht bevestigd.
Gerecht EU: wijst de de klacht af.
20 Therefore, the fact that the Board of Appeal stated in paragraph 12 of the contested decision that, ‘even though absolute impossibility is not required, that provision does require abnormal difficulties which are independent of the will of the person concerned and which are apparently inevitable even if all due care is taken’ does not permit the inference that the Board of Appeal committed an error in the present case in its interpretation of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009.
21 In that regard, as OHIM rightly states, paragraph 12 of the contested decision cannot be read separately from the other paragraphs of the contested decision. However, it is relevant that the Board of Appeal held in paragraph 18 of the contested decision that ‘restitutio in integrum can be grounded if in spite of all due diligence, the representative himself or his clerical staff commits an excusable error or if unforeseeable events occur’.
22 It must also be noted that the applicant confines itself to abstract considerations without stating in what way the Board of Appeal in the present case actually gave a strict interpretation of Article 81(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 which was inconsistent with the case-law. In particular, the applicant does not state how the use of the expression ‘exceptional events’ rather than ‘abnormal difficulties’ or of the expression ‘unforeseeable events’ rather than ‘difficulties which are independent of the will of the person concerned and which are apparently inevitable’ show that the Board of Appeal departed from the correct interpretation of Article 81(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
30 However, in the present case, it must be noted that, as an explanation for the corruption in the computer system used by BWT, the applicant states in the application that that system ‘had become corrupted creating a programming error that prevented the reminder emails from being generated’ and classifies that corruption of the computer system as being ‘unforeseeable’ and ‘exceptional’. The applicant gives no more explanations in that regard to clarify whether or not the corruption in question constitutes a foreseeable risk which is inherent in any computer system.
31 As a consequence, it must be held that the applicant has not shown that BWT exercised all due care required by the circumstances within the meaning of Article 81(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
32 That conclusion cannot be affected by the alleged manifest errors of assessment made by the Board of Appeal in paragraphs 24 to 27 of the contested decision.
38 However, in that regard, the applicant confines itself to stating in its application that, while it did not give an explanation regarding the management of emails by BWT and in particular regarding the error made by BWT’s renewals manager who disregarded the renewal application made by the applicant’s agent, that was because the ultimate cause of the failure to renew the trade mark was not the human error of BWT’s renewals manager but the corruption in the computer system. The applicant does not thereby prove that the statement of the Board of Appeal in paragraph 25 of the contested decision is incorrect.
48 It must be held, however, that, regardless of the question of whether the corruptions in the Inprotech computer system were also mentioned in the decisions of the Boards of Appeal, the applicant does not succeed in refuting the statement of the Board of Appeal that the applicant has not established how the corruption in the computer system in the present case ought to be regarded as exceptional.
