Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST.

Präsentation zum Thema: "Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST."—  Präsentation transkript:

1 Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST ALTENBURG GEISSLER München Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl Galileiplatz 1 D-81679 München Tel. +49 (89) 92 80 5-0 Fax +49 (89) 92 80 5-444 vonmuhlendahl@bardehle.de www.bardehle.com

2 Teil II Europäisches Markenrecht B. Absolute Schutzhindernisse Wort und Bild Sonstige Schutzhindernisse

3 Schutzvoraussetzungen – absolute Schutzhindernisse Artikel 7 GMV Kein schutzfähiges Zeichen Mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Beschreibender Charakter Gattungsbezeichnung Technische oder ästhetische Funktionalität

4 Schutzvoraussetzungen – absolute Schutzhindernisse Artikel 7 GMV Täuschender Charakter Verstoss gegen öffentliche Ordnung oder gute Sitten Verstoss gegen Artikel 6ter PVÜ Sonstige Symbole oder Zeichen von öffentlichem Interesse Geschützte geographische Angaben

5 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Verfahren Prüfung von Amts wegen vor der Eintragung Prüfung im Löschungsverfahren Einwendung im Verletzungsverfahren

6 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Allgemeine Prüfungsgrundsätze Massgeblich ist stets die Wahrnehmung des „Publikums“ (der „beteiligten Verkehrskreise“ – Endverbraucher, Zwischenstufen) Diese Wahrnehmung wird nicht abstrakt, sondern konkret mit Bezug auf die betroffenen Waren und Dienstleistungen festgestellt Die Prüfung muss stets das dem Zurückweisungsgrund zugrunde liegende öffentliche Interesse berücksichtigen

7 Absolute Schutzhindernisse – mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Eine Marke ist unterscheidungskräftig, wenn sie geeignet ist, Waren oder Dienstleistungen nach ihrer betrieblichen Herkunft zu unterscheiden Das „öffentliche Interesse“ fällt mit der Schutzvoraussetzung zusammen Bei Farbmarken ist die Verfügbarkeit für andere zu beachten

8 Mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Farbmarken Farbmarken sind in der Regel nicht unterscheidungskräftig Dies gilt für einzelne Farben und einfache Kombinationen

9 Mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft 3D Marken 3D-Marken, die aus der Form der Ware oder ihrer Verpackung bestehen, sind nur dann unterscheidungskräftig, wenn sich die Gestaltung erheblich von der Norm oder Übung in dem betreffenden Zweig der Wirtschaft unterscheidet 3D-Marken, die aus der üblichen Warenform oder aus technisch oder ästhetisch gebotenen Formen bestehen, sind vom Schutz ausgeschlossen

10 Beschreibende Marken Wortmarken, Bildmarken und 3D-Marken können beschreibend sein Eine Marke ist beschreibend, wenn sie ausschliesslich aus Angaben besteht, die gewöhnlich im geschäftlichen Verkehr als Bezeichnung der Art, Natur, Qualität, Herkunft, Bestimmung oder sonstiger Merkmale der Waren oder Dienstleistungen verwendet werden

11 Beschreibende Marken Marken sind beschreibend, wenn sie das „Publikum“ unmittelbar und ohne weiteres Nachdenken über die Ware oder Dienstleistung (Art, Natur, Qualität,..) informieren Neologismen (erfundene oder unübliche Wortbildungen oder Wortkombinationen) sind nur schutzfähig, wenn sie sich hinreichend von der üblichen Wortwahl unterscheiden

12 Absolute Schutzhindernisse – besondere Probleme Absolute Schutzhindernisse in einer Vielsprachen- und Vielvölkergemeinschaft Partielle mangelnde Schutzfähigkeit, Artikel 7 (2) GMV Überwindung der mangelnden Unterscheidungskraft und des beschreibenden Charakters durch Benutzung, Artikel 7 (3) GMV

13 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Beispiele aus der Rechtsprechung (EuGH und EuG) Bildmarken

14 C-25/05 P - T-402/02 “Werther’s” CTM 784454

15 C-25/05 P - T-402/02 “Werther’s Bonbons Wrapper” CTM 784454 28 In those circumstances, only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (see, in particular, Henkel v OHIM, paragraph 39, Mag Instrument v OHIM, paragraph 31, and Deutsche SiSi-Werke v OHIM, paragraph 31). 29 That case-law, which was developed in relation to three- dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself, also applies where, as in the present case, the trade mark applied for is a figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of that product. In such a case, the mark likewise does not consist of a sign unrelated to the appearance of the products it covers.

16 T-337/99 Henkel KG aA refused

17 T-122/01 Best Buy Concepts, Inc. refused

18 T-128/01 DaimlerChrysler Corp. accepted

19 Amar/OHIM T-388/04

20 IVG Immobilien/OHIM T-441/05

21 Cain Cellars/OHIM T-305/05

22 Court of First Instance TridonicAtco GmbH & Co. KG v. OHIM („Meter“) Case T-297/07 – R Decision (Seventh Chamber) 15 October 2008 Confirmed (not registrable)

23 TridonicAtco/OHIM T-297/07 CTM Not registrable

24 Court of First Instance Jean Cassegrain SAS v. OHIM („Bag fig“) Case T-73/06 Decision (Second Chamber) 21 October 2008 Confirmed (not registrable)

25 Cassegrain/OHIM T-73/06 CTM Not registrable

26 Court of First Instance GretagMacbeth LLC v. OHIM („Colour panel“) Case T-400/07 – R Decision (Second Chamber) 12.11.2008 Confirmed (not registrable) Absence of distinctive character

27 GretagMacbeth LLC/OHIM T-400/07 CTM Not registrable

28 T-282/07 Tom Tailor 28.4.2009

29 T-283/07 Tom Tailor 28.4.2009

30 T-417/07 Europénne de traitement de l‘information 2.7.2009

31 T-225/08, T-226/08 Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel 8.7.2009 Alaska

32 T-152/07 Lange Uhren 14.9.2009

33 T-139/08 Smiley Company 29.9.2009

34 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Beispiele der Rechtsprechung (EuGH und EuG) Wortmarken

35 European Court of Justice Windsurfing Chiemsee/Huber & Attenberger („CHIEMSEE“) Joined Cases C-108/97 and 109/97 Advocate General Cosmas 5 May 1998 Rapporteur Gulmann Decision 4 May 1999

36 C-107, 108/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee CHIEMSEE

37 C-108, 109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee

38 C-107, 108/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee 1. Article 3(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that: -it does not prohibit the registration of geographical names as trade marks solely where the names designate places which are, in the mind of the relevant class of persons, currently associated with the category of goods in question; it also applies to geographical names which are liable to be used in future by the undertakings concerned as an indication of the geographical origin of that category of goods;

39 C-265/00 Campina Melkunie/BBM BIOMILD

40 C-265/00 Campina Melkunie/BBM Article 3(1)(c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark consisting of a neologism composed of elements, each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, is itself descriptive of the characteristics of those goods or services for the purposes of that provision, unless there is a perceptible difference between the neologism and the mere sum of its parts: that assumes that, because of the unusual nature of the combination in relation to the goods or services, the word creates an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which it is composed, with the result that the word is more than the sum of its parts. For the purposes of determining whether the ground for refusal set out in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 applies to such a mark, it is irrelevant whether or not there are synonyms capable of designating the same characteristics of the goods or services referred to in the application for registration.

41 European Court of Justice KPN & PTT/BBM („POSTKANTOOR“) Case C-363/99 Hearing 15 November 2001 Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 31 January 2002 Rapporteur Macken Decision 12 February 2004

42 C-363/99 KPN & PTT/BBM POSTKANTOOR

43 European Court of Justice Nichols plc/U.K. Patent Office („Nichols“) Case C-404/02 Hearing 27 November 2003 Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 15 January 2004 Rapporteur Gulmann Decision 16 September 2004

44 C-404/02 Nichols/U.K. Patent Office NICHOLS cl. 29, 30, 32, 42

45 C-404/02 Nichols/U.K. Patent Office In the context of Article 3(1)(b) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, the assessment of the existence or otherwise of the distinctive character of a trade mark constituted by a surname, even a common one, must be carried out specifically, in accordance with the criteria applicable to any sign covered by Article 2 of that directive, in relation, first, to the products or services in respect of which registration is applied for and, second, to the perception of the relevant consumers. The fact that the effects of registration of the trade mark are limited by virtue of Article 6(1)(a) of that directive has no impact on that assessment.

46 European Court of Justice Matratzen Concord AG/Hukla („MATRATZEN“) Case C-421/04 Reference from the Audiencia Provincial Barcelona Hearing Advocate General Jacobs 24 November 2005 Rapporteur Ilesic Decision (First Chamber) 9 March 2006

47 C-421/04 Matratzen Concord/Hukla MATRATZEN

48 C-421/04 Matratzen Concord/Hukla Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks does not preclude the registration in a Member State, as a national trade mark, of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character or descriptive of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, unless the relevant parties in the Member State in which registration is sought are capable of identifying the meaning of the term.

49 European Court of Justice Procter & Gamble Co./OHIM („BABY-DRY“) Case C-383/99 P Hearing 30 January 2001 Advocate General Jacobs 5 April 2001 Decision 20 September 2001

50 C-383/99 P - T-163/98 Procter & Gamble / OHIM BABY-DRY

51 C-383/99 P - T-163/98 Procter & Gamble / OHIM

52 Procter & Gamble / OHIM … 37. It is clear from those two provisions [Art. 7 (1) and Art. 12 CTMR] taken together that the purpose of the prohibition of registration of purely descriptive signs or indications as trade marks is, as both Procter & Gamble and the OHIM acknowledge, to prevent registration as trade marks of signs or indications which, because they are no different from the usual way of designating the relevant goods or services or their characteristics, could not fulfil the function of identifying the undertaking that markets them and are thus devoid of the distinctive character needed for that function. (emphasis added)

53 Procter & Gamble / OHIM 39. The signs and indications referred to in Article 7 (1)(c) are thus only those which may serve in normal usage from a consumer‘s point of view to designate, either directly or by reference to one of their essential characteristics, goods or services such as those in respect of which registration is sought. Furthermore, a mark composed of signs or indications satisfying that definition should not be refused registration unless it comprises no other signs or indications of which it is composed are not presented or configured in a manner that distinguishes the resultant whole from the usual way of designating the goods or services concerned or their essential characteristics. (emphasis added)

54 Procter & Gamble / OHIM 40. As regards trade marks composed of words, such as the mark at issue here, descriptiveness must be determined not only in relation to each word taken separately but also in relation to the whole which they form. Any perceptible difference between the combination of words submitted for registration and the terms used in the common parlance of the relevant class of consumers to designate the goods or services or their essential characteristics is apt to confer distinctive character on the word combination enabling it to be registered as a trade mark. (emphasis added)

55 Procter & Gamble / OHIM 42. In order to assess whether a word combination such as BABY-DRY is capable of distinctiveness, it is therefore necessary to put oneself in the shoes of an English-speaking consumer. From that point of view, and given that the goods in this case are babies‘ nappies, the determination to be made depends on whether the word combination in question may be viewed as a normal way of referring to the goods or of representing their essential characteristics in common parlance. (emphasis added)

56 Procter & Gamble / OHIM 43. As it is, that word combination, whilst it does unquestionably allude to the function which the goods are supposed to fulfil, still does not satisfy the disqualifying criteria set forth in paragraphs 39 to 42 of this judgment. Whilst each of the two words in the combination may form part of expressions used in everyday speech to designate the function of babies’ nappies, their syntactically unusual juxtaposition is not a familiar expression in the English language, either for designating babies’ nappies or for describing their essential characteristics. (emphasis added)

57 Procter & Gamble / OHIM 44. Word combinations like BABY-DRY cannot therefore be regarded as exhibiting, as a whole, descriptive character; they are lexical inventions bestowing distinctive power on the mark so formed and may not be refused registration under Article 7 (1)(c). (emphasis added) 45. The Court of First Instance therefore erred in law in holding that the OHIM’s First Board of Appeal was right to find that BABY- DRY was not capable of constituting a Community trade mark on the basis of that provision.

58 European Court of Justice DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG/OHIM („COMPANYLINE“) Case C-104/00 P Hearing 21 March 2002 Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 14 May 2002 Rapporteur Jann Decision 19 September 2002

59 C-104/00 P - T-19/99 DKV / OHIM COMPANYLINE

60 European Court of Justice OHIM / Wm. Wrigley Jr. („DOUBLEMINT“) Case C-191/01 P Intervention by the United Kingdom and Germany in support of OHIM Hearing 21 January 2003 Advocate General Jacobs 10 April 2003 Rapporteur Puissochet Decision 23 October 2003 Application thereafter withdrawn

61 C-191/01 - T-193/99 OHIM / Wm. Wrigley Jr. DOUBLEMINT

62 OHIM / Wm. Wrigley Jr.

63 32. In order for OHIM to refuse to register a trade mark under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, it is not necessary that the signs and indications composing the mark that are referred to in that article actually be in use at the time of the application for registration in a way that is descriptive of goods or services such as those in relation to which the application is filed, or of characteristics of those goods or services. It is sufficient, as the wording of that provisions itself indicates, that such signs and indications could be used for such purposes. A sign must therefore be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.

64 European Court of Justice Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH/OHIM („UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH“, „UNIVER- SALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS“) Joined Cases C-326/01 P Hearing: no hearing Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer Rapporteur Puissochet Decision/Order 5 Februar 2004

65 C-326/01 - T-357/99 and 358/99 Telefon und Buch VerlagsgmbH/OHIM UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS

66 European Court of Justice OHIM/Zapf Creations AG („New Born Baby“) Case C-498/01 P Hearing 8 January 2004 Advocate General Jacobs 19 February 2004 Application withdrawn

67 C-498/01 P - T-140/00 OHIM / Zapf Creations AG New Born Baby

68 OHIM / Zapf Creations Zapf website New born® 2.4.2002

69 European Court of Justice OHIM/Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH („DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT“) Case C-64/02 P Hearing 5 May 2004 Advocate General Poiares Maduro 17 June 2004 Rapporteur Timmermans Decision 21 October 2004

70 C-64/02 P - T-138/00 OHIM / Erpo Möbelwerk Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit

71 OHIM / Erpo Möbelwerk from Erpo website 2.4.2002

72 European Court of Justice SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH/OHIM („SAT.2“) Case C-329/02 P - T-323/00 Hearing 8 January 2004 Advocate General Jacobs 11 March 2004 Rapporteur Puissochet Decision 16 September 2004 Decision of CFI annulled

73 C-329/02 P - T-323/00 SatellitenFernsehen/OHIM SAT.2

74 C-329/02 P - T-323/00 SatellitenFernsehen/OHIM 26 As regards the registration as trade marks of colours per se, not spatially delimited, the Court has already ruled, in Libertel, paragraph 60, that the public interest underlying Article 3(1)(b) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), a provision which is identical to Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation, is aimed at the need not to restrict unduly the availability of colours for the other operators who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought. 27 Furthermore, in view of the extent of the protection afforded to a trade mark by the regulation, the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation is, manifestly, indissociable from the essential function of a trade mark, as observed in paragraph 23 above.

75 C-329/02 P - T-323/00 SatellitenFernsehen/OHIM 28 Finally, as regards a trade mark comprising words or a word and a digit, such as that which forms the subject-matter of the dispute, the distinctiveness of each of those terms or elements, taken separately, may be assessed, in part, but must, in any event, depend on an appraisal of the whole which they comprise. Indeed, the mere fact that each of those elements, considered separately, is devoid of distinctive character does not mean that their combination cannot present a distinctive character (see, by analogy, Case C-265/00 Campina Melkunie [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 40 and 41, and C- 363/99 Koninklijke KPN Nederland [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 99 and 100).

76 C-329/02 P - T-323/00 SatellitenFernsehen/OHIM 46 The fact that the element associated with ‘SAT’ is in this case the digit ‘2’ and a point, rather than another verbal element has, contrary to the Office’s contention, no bearing on that analysis. Furthermore, the Office did not, at any stage in the proceedings, give as a reason for the difference in the treatment afforded to the appellant’s application the likelihood of confusion between the sign which the latter sought to register and any previously registered trade mark. 47 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the grounds on which the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM considered that the term ‘SAT.2’ is devoid of character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation are unfounded.

77 Mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Beschreibender Charakter 13.2.2008, Rs. C-212/07 P, Indorata Servicos e Gestao (Beschluss) HAIRTRANSFER nicht schutzfähig 8, 22, 41, 44 8.5.2008, Rs. C-304/06 P, Eurohypo AG (Urteil) EUROHYPO nicht schutzfähig cl. 36 30.1.2009, Rs. C-131/08 P, Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. SAFETY 1st nicht schutzfähig12, 20, 21, 28

78 Mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Beschreibender Charakter 6.2.2009, Rs. C-17/08 P, MPVD Mikrolab GmbH manufacturing score card nicht schutzfähig 9, 35, 42 11.6.2009, Rs. C-542/07 P, Imagination Technologies Ltd. PURE DIGITAL nicht schutzfähig 9, 38 24.9.2009, Rs. C-78/09 P, Compagnie des bateaux mouches BATEAUX MOUCHES nicht schutzfähig 39, 41, 42

79 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 10.6.2008, T-330/06, Novartis BLUE SOFT (9) 8.7.2008, T-160/07, Lancôme COLOR EDITION (3) 9.7.2008, T-323/05, The Coffee Store THE COFFEE STORE (30, 32, 43)

80 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 9.7.2008, T-304/06, Paul Reber (Löschung) MOZART (30) 24.9.2008, HUP Uslugi Polska (Löschung) I.T.@MANPOWERI.T.@MANPOWER (9, 16, 35, 38, 41) 29..9.2008, T-166/06, Powderject Research POWDERMED (5) 15.10.2008, T-405/05, Powerserv Personalservice (Löschung) MANPOWER

81 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft 15.10.2008, T-230/06, Rewe-Zentral PORT LOUIS (18, 24, 25)

82 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 23.10.2008, T-133/06, TIM International (Löschung) PAST PERFECT (9) 23.10.2008, T-158/06, Adobe FLEX (9, 36, 42) 5.11.2008, T-256/06, Neoperl Servisys HONEYCOMB (11)

83 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 12.11.2008, T-373/07, EOS PrimeCast (19, 40) 13.11.2008, T-346/07, Duro Sweden EASYCOVER (19, 24, 27) 19.11.2008, T-269/06, Rautaruukki RAUTARUUKKI (6)

84 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 25.11.2008, T-25/08, Caisse fédérale SURFCARD (9, 36, 38) 26.11.2009, T-399/06, En Route International FRESHHH (29, 30, 32) 2.12.2008, T-67/07, Ford Motor FUN (12)

85 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 20.1.2009, T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. OPTIMUM (1) 21.1.2009, T-399/06, giropay GmbH GIROPAY (9, 36, 37, 38, 42) 21.1.2009, T-296/07, Korsch AG PharmaCheck (9) 21.1.2009, T-307/07, Hansgrohe AG AIRSHOWER (11)

86 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken 28.1.2009, T-174/07, Volkswagen AG TDI (4, 7, 37) (also 7.3) 25.3.2009, T-343/07, allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG ALLSAFE (6, 12, 22, 35, 39, 42) 21.1.2009, T-307/07, Hansgrohe AG AIRSHOWER (11) 29.4.2009, T-81/08, Enercon GmbH E-Ship (7, 9, 12, 39)

87 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken/Word marks 17.5.2009, T-211, 213, 245/06, T-155, 178/07, Europénne de traitement d‘information (Euro-Information) CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE et CYBERHOME (9, 36, 38) 20.5.2009, T-405, 406/07, Caisse fédéderale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE)Europénne de traitement d‘information (Euro-Information) P@YWEB CARD, PAYWEB CARD (9, 36, 38) z.T. schutzfähig z.T. nicht schutzfähig

88 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken/word marks 11.6.2009, T-132/08, ERNI Electronics GmbH MaxiBridge (17) 17.6.2009, T-464/07, Korsch AG PharmaResearrch (9) 8.7.2009, Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH – Schwarzbräu GmbH (Cancellation), T-226/08 (same: T-226/08, alaska fig) Alaska (32) (registrable) 9.7.2009, Biotronik GmbH & Co. KG, T-257/08 BioMonitor (10)

89 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken/word marks 16.9.2009, T-180/07, Promomadrid Desarrollo Internacional de Madrid, SA (16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42) (reversed, 7.1.c. no) 23.9.2009, T-396/07, France Telecom, 9, 35, 38 UNIQUE

90 Beschreibender Charakter, mangelnde Unterscheidungskraft Wortmarken/word marks 19.11.2009, T-234/06, Giampietro Torresan – Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (cancellation) CANNABIS (32, 33) 19.11.2009, T-399/08, Clearwire Corp. CLEARWIFI (38)

91 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Verstoss gegen die öffentliche Ordnung oder die guten Sitten – Artikel 7 (1) (f) GMV Beispiele Grob anstössige Marken Politisch oder gesellschaftlich unakzeptable Marken Bin Ladin Fidel Castro Obama, Bush, Barroso, Schmidt, Gonzalez, Gorbatschow, Kadar, Orban, Stalin, Bismarck

92 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Täuschende Marken – Artikel 7 (1) (g) GMV Eine Marke ist täuschend, wenn ihre Verwendung für die in der Anmeldung oder Eintragung aufgeführten Waren das Publikum über verkehrswesentliche Eigenschaften der Waren oder Dienstleistungen (Natur, Qualität, Herkunft, …) irreführen würde

93 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Nicht autorisierte Verwendung von Hoheitssymbolen – Artikel 7 (1) (h), (i) GMV Hoheitssymbole: Flaggen, Wappen, Abzeichen Sonstige Zeichen: Rotes Kreuz, religiöse Symbole

94 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Marken, die unbefugt Flaggen, Wappen oder sonstige staatliche Hoheitszeichen enthalten Grundsatz Heraldische Nachahmung Nachweis der Befugnis

95 EuG/EuGH 28.2.2008, T-215/06, American Clothing (18, 25, 40) (n. rkr.), teilweise bestätigt (hins. Waren), teilweise aufgehoben (hins. Dienstleistungen), EuGH 16.7.2009, Rs. C-202 & 208/08 )

96 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Konflikt mit geschützten geographischen Angaben – Artikel 7 (1) (j), (k) GMV Marken dürfen nicht „unbefugt“ aus geschützten geographischen Angaben bestehen oder solche enthalten Beispiele Champagne, Bayerisches Bier Budweiser

97 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Konflikt mit geschützten geographischen Angaben – Artikel 7 (1) (j), (k) GMV Beispiel: Champagne

98 European Court of Justice Consorcio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola/Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG („GORGONZOLA/CAMBOZOLA“) Case C-87/97 Hearing Advocate General Jacobs 17 December 1998 Rapporteur Decision 4 March 1999

99 C-87/97 Consorcio etc./Champignon Hofmeister GORGONZOLA/ CAMBOZOLA

100 Court of First Instance Budejovicky Budvar N.P. v. OHIM – Anheuser- Busch Inc. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. OHIM – Budejovicky Budvar N.P. („BUDWEISER“/“BUDWEISER“, „BUD“) Cases T-53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64/04) Cases filed Hearing 13 October 2005 Three Decisions (Fifth Chamber) 12 June 2007

101 Absolute Schutzhindernisse Konflikt mit geschützten geographischen Angaben – Artikel 7 (1) (j), (k) GMV Beispiel: Budweiser

102 Budweiser, BUD v. Budweiser, BUD BUDWEISER BUD BUDWEISER BUD

103 Court of First Instance Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano v. OHIM – Biraghi SpA (GRANA PADANO – GRANA BIRAGHI) Case T-291/03 – R 153/2002-1 Case filed 21 August 2003 Hearing 28 February 2007 Decisions (Fourth Chamber) 12 September 2007 Reversed

104 T-291/03 Consorzio Grana Padano/OHIM GRANA PADANOGRANA BIRAGHI

105 Information über HABM/GM oami.europa.eu Kontakt vonmuhlendahl@bardehle.de