Curtea de justitie a Comunitatilor Europene a dat o hotarare in cazul C-529/07, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (cazul este cunoscut ca fiind razboiul iepurasilor de ciocolata). Hotararea amendeaza astfel o sentinta a unui tribunal austriac, prin care se stabilea reaua credinta in cazul actiunilor care au ca obiect anularea unor marci deja existente. Potrivit Curtii de Justitie,
“In order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation … 40/94 …, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as a Community trade mark, in particular:
– the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought;
– the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and
– the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought”.
Stiu, e limba de lemn ce scriu eu mai sus. Dar o astfel de decizie este importanta mai ales in cazul in care te trezesti ca un oarecare a inregistrat deja ca marca denumirea siteului tau, spre exemplu. Chiar daca n-o foloseste cum ar trebui, marca nu poate fi atacata decat daca se anuleaza marca respectiva. Motivatia de mai sus poate fi folosita intr-un astfel de proces.
Ca tot vorbim despre motivatii, iata o sentinta din Romania, care a rezolvat o cerere de anulare a marcii STALINSKAYA
Hmm… S.C. Rominvest S.A. si S.C. Prodal 94 S.R.L., doua firme grele, cu ai caror avocati unii au avut placerea sa se intalneasca.
Ce s-a rezolvat cu S.C. Prodal 94 S.R.L., aparenta dreptului?
) Ca au tot incercat alti “grei” s-o rezolve si n-au reusit!
In fine, eu, cititor fidel, astept continuarea povestii.