About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

2012-1 E.C.R. 1 (2012)

handle is hein.intyb/rrjucfis0144 and id is 1 raw text is: 





    VRw                             Reports of Cases




                                        Case T-304/09

                                  Tilda Riceland Private Ltd
                                              v
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)


  (Community  trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark
  BASmALI   -  Earlier non-registered trade mark and earlier sign BASMATI - Relative ground for
refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))


                                   Summary  of the Judgment

 Community  trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Relative grounds
for refusal - Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course
of the trade - Conditions - Proof of acquisition of rights over the sign by the opponent - Taking into
account the national law invoked in support of the opposition

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4))


In accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the proprietor
of a non-registered trade mark or of another sign used in the course of trade of more than merely local
significance can lodge a statement of opposition against the registration of a Community trade mark
where  and to the extent that, pursuant to the law of the Member State which is applicable, rights to
that sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark,
or prior to the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the Community trade
mark, and that sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark.
It follows that one of the conditions for applying Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 is that the
opponent  has to show that it is the proprietor of the sign relied on in support of the opposition. That
condition means that the opponent has to prove the acquisition of rights over that sign. Under that
provision, those rights must make it possible to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. The
question whether an opponent  has acquired rights over a non-registered trade mark or over a sign
used in the course of trade - and, accordingly, whether he is proprietor of the sign relied on for the
purposes  of that provision - cannot be addressed without taking into account the national law
invoked in support of the opposition. In that context, one of the roles played by the relevant national
law is to define the procedures for acquiring rights over the sign relied on in support of an opposition
brought under that provision.

                                                                          (see paras 16, 17, 22)


ECLJ:EU:T:2012:131


1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most