B9 10254. Gerecht EU, 11 oktober 2011, zaak T-87/10, Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. tegen OHIM.
Merkenrecht. Weigering inschrijving van het beschrijvend geachte woordmerk ‘PIPELINE’ voor, kort gezegd, een medisch pijplijntje naar een aneurysme in hersenen.
26. It is common ground between the parties that one of the methods for treating an aneurysm is to insert through the groin up into the brain, via a stent, a pipe-like device which resembles a tiny metal Chinese finger cuff, which has the effect of redirecting the flow of blood in order to help seal off the hole in the artery.
27. In this regard, it is true that the word ‘pipeline’ certainly does not evoke in the mind of an average English-speaking consumer a device used for the treatment of the pathology described above, but rather installations for the long-distance conveyance of certain hydrocarbons. However, that public is not relevant in the present case. As the Board of Appeal rightly stated in paragraph 30 of the contested decision, a medical professional specialising in the treatment of aneurysms will immediately understand the word ‘pipeline’, as used in the context of his specialisation, as being a direct and specific indication of the characteristics of the goods in question.
29. The holder of such a mark would thus prevent the other producers of devices of the same or similar nature from using the same sign to describe their functioning or characteristics and could also mislead the relevant public with regard to their origin.
Lees het arrest hier.
