Wat mag een gebruiker verwachten van een gebouw in college-stijl?
Gerecht EU 12 juni 2012, zaak T-165/11 (Stichting ROC van Amsterdam tegen OHIM/Investimust)
Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. In de nietigheidsprocedure vordert de Stichting ROC van Amsterdam, van het opleidingshotel The College Hotel, de nietigverklaring van het woordmerk COLLEGE (voor toeristeninformatiedienst en hotels). Dit vanwege het beschrijvend karakter van het woordmerk, een absolute nietigheidsgrond ex art. 52(1)(a) jo. 7. De nietigheidsafdeling wijst de vordering af en het beroep wordt verworpen. Middel: de kamer van beroep heeft het in beroep overlegde bewijsmateriaal niet in aanmerking genomen.
Het Gerecht EU wijst de grieven af, de verzoekster heeft niet aangetoond wat een gebruiker van een gebouw in college-stijl kan verwachten.
31 Second, the Board of Appeal did not err in holding that the term ‘college’ does not generally call to mind those services. A student or any other person interested in a college does not, generally, go to a college with the object or expectation of staying there or spending a night there, and a person seeking a hotel establishment will not, generally, refer to a college, as the Board of Appeal noted in paragraph 25 of the contested decision.
32 As OHIM rightly points out, a user of a hotel accommodation service which uses the term ‘college’ cannot predict with sufficient precision the characteristics of that service that are linked to the term ‘college’. A former college converted into a hotel will not necessarily be decorated like a college, just as a hotel using the name ‘college’ will not necessarily be situated near an educational institution. In the same way, the building used by a hotel decorated like a college may have had other uses in the past and may be situated in an area without schools or colleges.
33 The same is, moreover, true of the fact that certain universities offer rooms. Even if one were to proceed on the assumption that a university corresponds to a college, it must be noted that that offer of rooms is then generally addressed to persons who, by reason of their profession or studies, are deemed to be attending a university for a prolonged period. Even though certain universities offer hotel accommodation services to the general public in cases where some student accommodation is vacant, such an offer is ancillary or complementary to the main activity of a university, namely teaching and research, as the Board of Appeal rightly points out in paragraph 24 of the contested decision.
34 Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments relating to the services in Class 43 must be rejected as unfounded.
35 Third, concerning the documentary evidence, the applicant submits that the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment by rejecting certain items of evidence as being clearly irrelevant, and thus inadmissible, as that evidence merely supported the arguments previously expounded.
