欧盟法院判决明确欧盟商标通过使用获得显著性的地域认定标准
2019-03-15张昊钰黄若微
张昊钰 黄若微
2018年12月6日,欧盟普通法院对Deichmann诉欧盟知识产权局一案(T-848/16, Deichmann v EUIPO Vans (V))做出判决。判决中确认:TMview数据库中商标的信息摘要在满足一定条件的前提下,被认为可以作为欧盟知识产权局前双方对抗程序中在先商标权利的证明。
在本案中,上诉方Deichmann SE提出的上诉要点之一,是其提交的摘自TMview数据库的信息摘要,是否足以作为其异议程序基础的在先商标(指定欧盟的商标国际注册)的权利证明,易言之,是否能够满足下述《欧盟商标实施条例》第19(2)(a)(ii)条所规定的证据要求:
Rule 19 Substantiation of the opposition
…
(2) Within the period referred to in paragraph 1, the opposing party shall also file proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of his earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving his entitlement to file the opposition. In particular, the opposing party shall provide the following evidence:
(a) if the opposition is based on a trade mark which is not a Community trade mark, evidence of its filing or registration, by submitting:
(i) if the trade mark is not yet registered, a copy of the relevant filing certificate or an equivalent document emanating from the administration with which the trade mark application was filed; or
(ii) if the trade mark is registered, a copy of the relevant registration certificate and, as the case may be, of the latest renewal certificate, showing that the term of protection of the trade mark extends beyond the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 and any extension thereof, or equivalent documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered;
…
(3) The information and evidence referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be in the language of the proceedings or accompanied by a translation. The translation shall be submitted within the time limit specified for submitting the original document.
歐盟普通法院经审理后认定,TMview数据库中的信息均来自参与该项目的国家或地区商标局(对本案而言,指的是世界知识产权组织即WIPO),而且TMview数据库中的信息的有效性也已在欧盟知识产权局自己的审查指南中得到了承认。此外,法院注意到上诉方还按照上述第19(3)条的要求提供了受保护的商品和服务清单的程序语言翻译。基于前述理由,法院认为上诉方提交的TMview数据库的信息摘要已包含了前述第19(2)(a)(ii)条所要求的信息(在先商标的存续、有效性、保护范围以及主体适格),且也满足了第19(3)条关于证据语言的要求,因此其证明力应被得到认可。
这一判决结果确认了TMview数据库信息摘要在欧盟知识产权局前的对抗程序中作为在先商标权利证明的效力。不过,提交在先商标权利证据时,要特别注意其商品和服务列表所使用的语言是否与案件程序语言一致,如不一致,还需要提交相应的翻译,才能够满足前述第19(3)条关于证据语言的要求。