B9 11270. Gerecht EU, 25 mei 2012, zaak T-233/10, Nike International tegen OHIM/ Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN).
Merkenrecht. EU oppositie o.g.v. ouder Spaans en EU-woordmerk woordmerk JUMP (kleding) tegen de inschrijving van Nike’s woordmerk JUMPMAN (het woordmerk bij het Air Jordan-logo). Het OHIM wees de oppositie eerder toe en het Gerecht volgt dat oordeel. Het algemene Spaanse publiek zal het Engelse woord 'Jump' niet begrijpen en zien als een 'fanciful term' en vervolgens denken dat Jumpman de mannencollectie van Jump is. Tsja.
30. That argument is not convincing. On the contrary, it must be held, as the Board of Appeal did, that the word ‘jump’, which is not part of the basic vocabulary of the general public in Spain and which will not be understood as being the English word meaning ‘jump’ or ‘to jump’, will be perceived as a fanciful term. It follows, therefore, that the earlier mark for goods in Class 25 has average distinctive character.
53. However, the most distinctive element of the mark applied for is the word ‘jump’, which constitutes a distinctive term for the goods in Class 25 for the general public in Spain. The word ‘man’ is part of basic English vocabulary, possibly understood as such even by the average Spanish consumer and referring, for goods such as clothing, footwear and headgear, to goods for men and to be used by men. The addition of the word ‘man’ could therefore, possibly, be understood as an indication of a specific line of goods for men. Indeed, the European Union judicature has, on several occasions, confirmed that, in the clothing and footwear sector, it is not uncommon for the same mark to be configured in various ways according to the products it designates. In that sector, it is also common for a single clothing manufacturer to use sub-brands (signs that derive from a principal mark and which share with it a common dominant element) in order to distinguish its various clothing lines from one another, in particular female and male clothing.
Lees het arrest hier.
