Case C-98/11 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2011 by Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG against the judgment of the General Court (FirstChamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-336/08 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2011-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, competition, confectionery product, free competition








C_2011145EN.01001102.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/11





Appeal brought on 1 March 2011 by Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG against the judgment of the General Court (FirstChamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-336/08 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-98/11 P)
2011/C 145/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (represented by: G. Hild and R. Lange, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T-336/08;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court, by which it dismissed the appellant’s claim seeking annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 June 2008 on the rejection of its application for registration of a three-dimensional mark comprising the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red band.
The appellant bases its appeal on an infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.
As regards the first ground of appeal, concerning the assessment of the marks’ distinctive character, neither the assessment by OHIM nor the judicial review by the General Court satisfied the requirements in law, since both decisions were based on conjecture. OHIM speculated that the finding that a chocolate Easter bunny is a typical shape for Easter is valid for all Member States of the European Union and that that was not in dispute. That assertion has, however, always been in dispute, since the appellant has expressly disputed that assertion, adducing substantial evidence. OHIM and the General Court should have taken that into account in order correctly to fulfil their obligation of assessment under Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94. Further, the General Court reached the conclusion that the use of gold foil to wrap chocolate Easter bunnies is usual on the market, despite the fact that the judgment referred to only three other kinds wrapped in gold foil. Such a small number of goods cannot, in the view of the appellant, lead to that feature being regarded as ‘usual in the market’.
The fact that the assumption made by the General Court, that the mark has no inherent distinctive character throughout the European Union, is unfounded also becomes clear from the fact that the mark in question is registered as a trade mark in 15 Member States of the European Union.
The second ground of appeal concerns the ruling of the General Court that the mark must have acquired distinctive character through use throughout the European Union, which is incorrect for two reasons.
First, the General Court misses the point that distinctive character must be acquired by use only in those places where the mark has no inherent distinctive character. In the 15 Member States where the mark in question has inherent distinctive character, there is no need to require the acquisition of distinctive character through use. If the view were to be accepted that, as part of the assessment, distinctive character had to be ascertained again in the individual Member States, the factual circumstances pertaining there would have to be established. Since, pursuant to Article 74 of the regulation, distinctive character is to be assessed by OHIM of its own motion, OHIM should thus have made specific findings for each individual Member State of the European Union. OHIM and the General Court failed to do so.
Second, the considerations of the General Court cannot be reconciled with the principle of homogeneity of Community trade marks. In an assessment of registrability and, specifically in this case, distinctive character, the European Union is to be regarded as a common homogeneous market. If, as regards a significant part of the total population of the European Union, there is inherent distinctive character, that must also be sufficient for protection throughout the European market.