Case T‑528/11
Aloe Vera of America, Inc.
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FOREVER — Earlier national figurative mark 4 EVER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 January 2014
1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation taking account of the ratio legis of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))
2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))
3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Application of the criteria to the case in question
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))
4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment –Requirement of solid and objective evidence
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 42(2) and (3))
5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks FOREVER and 4 EVER
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
1. The ratio legis of the provision requiring that an earlier mark must have been put to genuine use within the meaning of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark if it is to be capable of being used in opposition to a trade mark application is to restrict the number of conflicts between two marks, where there is no good commercial justification resulting from a function actually performed by the mark on the market. However, the purpose of those provisions is not to assess commercial success or to review the economic strategy of an undertaking, nor are they intended to restrict trade-mark protection to the case where large-scale commercial use has been made of the marks.
(see para. 23)
2. There is genuine use of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark where the mark is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services, to the exclusion of token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition relating to genuine use of the trade mark requires that the mark, as protected in the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly.
When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is real, particularly the use regarded as warranted in the economic sector concerned as a means of maintaining or creating a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark.
As to the extent of the use to which the earlier trade mark has been put, account must be taken, in particular, of the commercial volume of the overall use, as well as of the length of the period during which the mark was used and the frequency of use.
(see paras 24-26)
3. To examine whether an earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in a particular case, a global assessment must be carried out, which takes into account all the relevant factors of that case. That assessment entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that the commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by a high intensity or some settled period of use of that mark or vice versa.
The turnover and the volume of sales of the goods under the earlier trade mark cannot be assessed in absolute terms but must be looked at in relation to other relevant factors, such as the volume of business, production or marketing capacity or the degree of diversification of the undertaking using the trade mark and the characteristics of the goods or services on the relevant market. As a result, use of the earlier mark need not always be quantitatively significant in order to be deemed genuine. Even minimal use can therefore be sufficient to be classified as genuine, provided that it is justified, in the economic sector concerned, to maintain or create market share for the goods or services protected by the mark. It follows that it is not possible to determine a priori, and in the abstract, what quantitative threshold should be chosen in order to determine whether use is genuine or not. A de minimis rule, which would not allow the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) or, on appeal, the General Court, to appraise all the circumstances of the dispute before it, cannot therefore be laid down.
(see paras 27, 28)
4. Genuine use of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or suppositions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of actual and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned. Moreover, under point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of that regulation, proof of genuine use of an earlier national or Community trade mark which forms the basis of an opposition against a Community trade mark application also includes proof of use of the earlier mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of that mark in the form in which it was registered.
(see paras 29, 30)
5. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 48, 49, 80)
6. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 51, 52, 84)