Diseños industriales comunitarios

Páginas1399-1414

Page 1399

A) Resoluciones de la OAMI
I Relación cronológica y extracto

DECISIÓN DE LA DIVISIÓN DE ANULACIÓN DE LA OAMI DE 11 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2008

Nulidad de un diseño industrial comunitario como consecuencia de la existencia de un derecho de marca previo sobre el signo registrado como diseño.

El diseño anulado es el número 807847-0001:

[NO INCLUYE GRÁFICO>

registrado para «símbolos gráficos».

Por su parte, la marca previa era la marca internacional número 792611

Vftek

registrada para productos de las clases 9,11 y 21 del Nomenclátor Internacional.

Vid. infra por extenso

Page 1400

  1. RESOLUCIONES POR EXTENSO

    DECISIÓN DE LA DIVISIÓN DE ANULACIÓN DE LA OAMI DE

    11 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2008

  2. GROUNDS OF THE DECISIÓN

    1. Substantiation

      B.1. Evidence

      (11) An extract from the ROMARIN datábase is sufficient evidence for the (distinctive sign) being a prior right.

      B .2. Distinctive Sign

      (12) Article 25(l)(e) CDR stipulates that a Community design is to be declared invalid if a distinctive sign is used in a subsequent design, and the Com munity law or the law of the Member States governing that sign confers on the right holder of the sign the right to prohibit such use.

      (13) According to Article 2 of the Directive 89/104/EEC of the Council, of 21 December 1988, a «trade mark may consist of any sign capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal ñames, designs, letters, numeráis, the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings». The Directive has been implemented in each of the Member States.

      (14) Consequently, where a sign is registered as a trademark in a Member State and the trademark is in forcé, it is presumed that it is a «distinctive sign» in the meaning of article 25(l)(e) CDR.

      B .3. Right to Prohibit Use

      (15) The [distinctive sign] of the Applicant is registered for goods in the classes 9, 11 and 21 of the Nice Classification (lst and 2nd IRs), and it designates the classes 7, 8,9, 10,11,14,16,21,28, 35 and 37 of the Nice Classification (3rd IR). The lst and 2nd IRs have effect in various Member States. The 3rd IR designates the European Unión. The 3ra IR is currently submitted to an opposition procedure currently pending. Therefore the right to prohibit use will be evaluated as the lst and the 2nd IRs are concerned.

      (16) According to Article 5 of the Directive 89/104/EEC, the proprietor of a registered trademark shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade:

      — any sign which is identical with the registered trademark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered;

      Page 1401

      — any sign where, because it is similar to the registered trademark and the goods and services covered by the trademark and the sign are identical or similar, there exist a likelihood of confusión on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trademark.

      (17) The use of the sign in the RCD is a use in the course of trade, since the purpose of registering a design is its use for commercial purposes.

      (18) The word «VITEK» is not identical to the word «VITEC», therefore an assessment of likelihood of confusión must be done. Likelihood of confusión must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, which implies some interdependence between the rele vant factors.

      (19) Comparison ofthe goods and services: The use of the sign in the RCD relates to the goods of the 1 st and 2nd IRs, since the sign is used in the design of a logo which intrinsically relates to any type of goods and services. In particular, it is the commercial purpose of a logo to be affixed to goods or to the packaging thereof or to be used on business papers and in advertising. Therefore, the goods for which the lst and 2nd IRs are registered are identically included in the goods to which the use of the sign in the RCD relates.

      (20) Comparison ofthe signs:

      — Visually, for both the lst and 2nd IRs and the RCD the most outstanding and distinctive element is their verbal element. the lst and 2nd IRs consisting ofthe word «VITEK» written in a standard type of letters are extremely similar to the verbal element of the RCD, «VITEC». The stylisation of the letters and the figurative elements accompanying both lst and 2nd IRs would be perceived by the rele vant consumer as having a secondary importance in the visual impression of the (distinctive sign).

      — Phonetically, both lst and 2nd IRs and the RCD are identical.

      — Semantically, no difference can be made between the lst and 2nd IRs and the RCD as no result was found for either words.

      — The global assessment of similarity taking into account the graphical (extremely similar), phonetic (identical) and semantic (no match) aspects of both lst and 2nd IRs and the RCD lead to the conclusión that the RCD and the lst and 2nd IRs are extremely similar.

      (21) Likelihood of confusión: The lst and 2"d IRs and the RCD can be considered as having a high degree of visual similarity, being identical from the phone tic aspect, and with no difference under the point of view of conceptual aspects. The goods and services in dispute are identical.

      (22) The RCD and the lst and 2nd IRs being both devoid of graphical notable features and semantic contení, the likelihood of confusión is depending to a large extent on the phonetic features. The likelihood of confusión exists as the dominant and distinctive

      — thus more easily remembered

      — phonetic features of the RCD and the lst and 2nd IRs are identical. When referring to the lst and 2nd IRs the public could not tell the difference with the RCD, because the only difference between the RCD and the lst and 2nd IRs (the use of the letter «C» in the RCD and the use of the letter «K» in the lst and 2nd IRs) cannot be appreciated phoneti cally.

      (23) Taking into account the identity of the contested goods and services, the high similarity between the signs and the principie of interdependence betwe en the factors described above, it is considered that when confronted with the signs in dispute the public cannot but think that the respective goods come from the same or an economically related origin. In this context, it has to be taken intoPage 1402consideration that consumers only rarely have the opportunity to compare both signs directly with each other.

    2. Conclusión

      (24) The Applicant has provided evidence that he has the right to prohibit the use of the sign in the RCD. Therefore, on request of the Applicant the RCD has to be declared invalid according to Article 25(l)(e) CDR.

      Page 1405

B) Resoluciones judiciales de los tribunales de marca comunitaria
I Relación cronológica y extracto

SENTENCIA DELJUZGADO DE LO MERCANTIL DE ALICANTE, NUM. 61/2008, DE 9 MAYO DE 2008

No se destruye la novedad de un dibujo o modelo industrial comunitario el hecho de que de forma separada o aislada esté anticipado algún elemento que forma parte del modelo. Esto es así porque lo que se protege es la impresión derivada conjuntamente de la específica disposición y combinación de los distintos elementos externos del modelo y que en conjunto conforman la novedad y singularidad del objeto cuya protección se reclama (por producir una impresión diferente de los anteriores).

No procede la aplicación cumulativa de los criterios del beneficio del infractor y del beneficio que habría obtenido el titular del derecho.

Vid. infra por extenso

II Sentencias reproducidas por extenso

SENTENCIA DEL JUZGADO DE LO MERCANTIL DE ALICANTE, NUM. 61/2008, DE 9 MAYO DE 2008

FUNDAMENTOS JURÍDICOS

Primero. Planteamiento.

  1. La actora ESTILUZ, S. A., formula demanda contra NOVOART ILUMI NACIÓN, S. L. (en adelante Novoart) para que se declare que con la comerciali zación de una lámpara de la colección Nina núm. referencia 1393/3L, la deman dada ha infringido el derecho exclusivo que la primera tiene sobre una lámpara de techo protegida como modelo comunitario núm. 334552-0002, con las pretensio nes de cesación, remoción, destrucción, indemnización y de difusión desglosadas en el suplico trascrito, por ser un plagio de este modelo comunitario, con invoca ción de los artículos 4, 19.1, 88.2 y 3 del Reglamento (CE) número 6/2002 del Consejo, sobre dibujos y modelos comunitarios (en adelante RDMC) y los artícu los 54 y 55 de la Ley 20/2003, de 7 de julio, de Protección Jurídica el Diseno Industrial (en lo sucesivo LDI).

  2. En la contestación a la demanda NOVOART se opone y niega la infrac ción de los derechos de propiedad industrial derivados del modelo comunitario registrado, de manera extractada por los siguientes motivos: a) que la actora care ce de tales derecho al ser el modelo comunitario nulo por falta de novedad y de carácter singular y que se trata de una consecuencia de la función técnica; b) que Page 1406la lámpara que comercializa la demandada (ref. 1393/3L) no es réplica del modelo comunitario 000334552-0002 y no produce igual impresión general en el usuario informado, y c) que no se han producido daños y perjuicios y carece de sentido la publicación interesada.

  3. Formula demanda reconvencional para que se declare la nulidad del modelo comunitario de la actora con invocación de las causas previstas en el artículo 25.1.b) del RDMC en relación con los artículos 5 y 6 del Reglamento: ausencia de novedad y de carácter singular, que debe ser la primeramente estudia da, pues, de estimarse, devendría carente de sustento la demanda principal , por aplicación del artículo 26 RDMC, regulador de los efectos de la nulidad del modelo o dibujo...

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR