IEFBE 3292

EUIPO: merk LEDARC is geldig

EUIPO 5 oktober 2021, IEF 20231, IEFbe 3292; 40789 (Ikea tegen Ledar) Ledar verhandelt op het gebied van verlichting diverse producten onder de merken LEDARC en LEDAR. Ikea c.s. verkoopt (led)lampen met gebruikmaking van het teken LEDARE. Ikea heeft bij het EUIPO onder meer verval en de nietigheid van het LEDARC-merk ingeroepen. Het EUIPO acht het merk LEDARC – een van de twee merken waarop Ledar zich in de bodemprocedure beroept [IEF 19515] – geldig. Het merk is niet te kwader trouw gedeponeerd, niet beschrijvend, mist niet elk onderscheidend vermogen en is ook geen gebruikelijke benaming.

As illustrated above, the applicant failed to put forward sufficient facts, objective indications and evidence that would allow  for a positive finding of bad faith other than resorting to assumptions and suppositions. The arguments submitted do not
demonstrate that at the time of filing of the contested EUTM, Naber knew or must have known of the use of the applicant’s sign. They are also insufficient to allow for a conclusion that the proprietor at that time actually intended to prevent the applicant from entering or continuing in the EU market, or to show the proprietor’s dishonest intentions at the moment of the filing the contested EUTM.

The applicant further claimed that the EUTM proprietor acquired the contested mark for the sole purpose of blocking the use of the sign ‘LEDARE’.

As already mentioned, there is no evidence, other than assumptions and suppositions, as to the previous knowledge by Ledar GmbH of the other product names apart from ‘LEDING’ used by IKEA Deutschland for lighting products. Moreover, the  EUTMR considers bad faith only as an absolute ground for the invalidity of an EUTM where the relevant point in time for determining whether there was bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner is the time of filing of the application for registration, and not the moment of a later acquisition by a third party. Furthermore, the applicant did not submit any evidence, other
than suppositions, that the EUTM proprietor’s sole intention when acquiring the contested mark was to prevent the applicant from continuing in the market (13/12/2012, T-136/11 Pelikan, ECLI:EU:T:2012:689, § 57-60).