Traduction de «Marque renommée » (Français → Anglais) :

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76, 8 and 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) has neglected its right to examine the facts of its own motion, and take into consideration facts that are apparently likely to affect the outcome of the opposition; (ii) erred in law when it did not consider that ‘Pierre Robert’ is a well known mark; (iii) failed when not considering the evidence, Annex 1, which was submitted in connection with the filing of the opposition; and (iv) failed when not accepting the certificate from the Swedish Patent and Registration O ...[+++]ffice filed before the decision of the opposition division.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76, 8 and 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) has neglected its right to examine the facts of its own motion, and take into consideration facts that are apparently likely to affect the outcome of the opposition; (ii) erred in law when it did not consider that ‘PIERRE ROBERT’ is a well known mark; (iii) failed when not considering the evidence, Annex 1, which was submitted in connection with the filing of the opposition; and (iv) failed when not accepting the certificate from the Swedish Patent and Registration O ...[+++]ffice filed before the decision of the opposition division.

Questioned also about enhanced protection for trade marks with a reputation, and in particular about the scope of “dilution” (detriment to the distinctive character of a trade mark with a reputation) and “free-riding” (taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark), the Court states, inter alia, that the selection, without “due cause”, in a referencing service, of signs identical with or similar to another person’s trade mark that has a reputation may be construed as free-riding.

By contrast, where the advertisement displayed on the internet on the basis of a keyword corresponding to a trade mark with a reputation puts forward an alternative to the goods or services of the proprietor of the trade mark with a reputation – without offering a mere imitation of the goods or services of the proprietor of that trade mark, without causing dilution of the trade mark or detriment to its repute (tarnishment) and without, moreover, adversely affecting the functions of the trade mark – such use falls, as a rule, within the ambit of fair competition in the sector for the goods or services concerned.

By contrast, there can be an infringement to the mark with a reputation when the degree of similarity between that mark and the sign has the effect that the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark without necessarily confusing them

The Court has found that it is not necessary for there to exist a likelihood of confusion between the sign and the mark with a reputation in order to claim infringement of that mark.