B9 10331. Gerecht EU, 26 oktober 2011, T‑426/09, Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG tegen OHIM / Koninklijke BAM Groep NV.
Merkenrecht. EU-oppositieprocedure op grond van het ouder Duitse beeldmerk BAM tegen de inschrijving van de aanvraag voor het beeldmerk BAM (bouwmachines en bouwmaterialen voor wegenbouw). De oppositie werd eerder door de Opposition Division gedeeltelijk toegewezen, maar het Gerecht volgt de beslissing van de Board of Appeal van het OHIM en wijst de oppositie van Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke tegen het beeldmerk van de Koninklijke BAM Groep integraal af. Formeel punt: een verzoek tot intrekking van een CTM-aanvraag wordt alleen in behandeling genomen als het wordt ingediend in een van de twee bij de oorspronkelijke aanvraag aangegeven talen.
42. It is moreover common ground that the goods in respect of which proof of genuine use of the earlier mark was furnished are the goods ‘asphalt and building materials derived from asphalt and for the production of asphalt’. The disagreement between the parties does not relate to that point, but to whether those goods, as designated by the earlier registration, are restricted to goods ‘for road construction’.
(…) 51. The facts, therefore, that the goods to be compared are used in those various fields, that bitumen, an ingredient of asphalt was in the past used to prevent corrosion of ‘rigid piping’ or that rigid piping is made of building materials are not sufficient for those goods to be regarded as similar. In addition to the views expressed in that regard by the Board of Appeal, OHIM and the intervener point out, correctly, that the goods in question have a different origin and physical condition, that their natures, purposes, composition, methods of production, uses and distribution channels are different, and that the relevant public is composed of specialists whose level of attention is high and who will notice those differences. Apart from a series of otherwise unsubstantiated claims, the applicant has not provided the Court with any evidence capable of showing that those views are erroneous.
(…) 55. The fact, therefore, that the applicant’s goods may be used to manufacture ‘transportable structures’ and ‘monuments’ is not sufficient for those goods to be regarded as similar. In addition to the views expressed in that regard by the Board of Appeal, OHIM and the intervener set out, correctly, views analogous, mutatis mutandis, to those set out in paragraph 51 above. Apart from a series of otherwise unsubstantiated claims, the applicant has not produced before the Court any evidence capable of showing that those views are erroneous.
(…) 59. The fact, therefore, that certain undertakings offer the services in question [‘Building construction; repairs; repair and maintenance’ services], at the same time as the goods manufactured by the applicant, such as Friedrich Steinhagen GmbH & Co., even if established, quod non, is not sufficient for those goods to be regarded as similar. In addition to the views expressed in that regard by the Board of Appeal, OHIM and the intervener set out, correctly, views analogous, mutatis mutandis, to those set out in paragraph 51 above. Apart from a series of otherwise unsubstantiated claims, the applicant has not produced before the Court any evidence capable of showing that those views are erroneous.
Lees het arrest hier.
