阿迪達(dá)斯“三道杠”商標(biāo)被宣告無效！

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)布，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Graeme Murray (Associate) 麥?zhǔn)似嬗?guó)劍橋辦公室

譯者：高燕 (Associate) 麥?zhǔn)似姹本┺k公室

原標(biāo)題：阿迪達(dá)斯失去"三道杠"

阿迪達(dá)斯失去“三道杠”

上周，阿迪達(dá)斯的一個(gè)三道杠商標(biāo)被歐盟普通法院（European General Court）宣告無效。

對(duì)我們大多數(shù)人而言，“三道杠”等同于阿迪達(dá)斯及其品牌。歐盟普通法院的上述判決向各企業(yè)含大牌企業(yè)敲響了警鐘，提醒在商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)前制定策略計(jì)劃的重要性。

案情提要

阿迪達(dá)斯2014年注冊(cè)了如下歐盟商標(biāo)（在案商標(biāo)）：

阿迪達(dá)斯“三道杠”商標(biāo)被宣告無效！

在案商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)時(shí)包含的商標(biāo)描述為“本商標(biāo)由三條平行、等距、同等寬度的豎條構(gòu)成，將以任意方向使用在商品上”。

一家比利時(shí)制鞋公司發(fā)起無效挑戰(zhàn)。歐盟知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局第二復(fù)審委員會(huì)于2016年宣告在案商標(biāo)的注冊(cè)無效，理由是商標(biāo)缺乏內(nèi)在顯著性而且未經(jīng)證明已經(jīng)在歐盟獲得顯著性因此一開始就不應(yīng)在2014年獲準(zhǔn)注冊(cè)。

阿迪達(dá)斯之后向法院起訴。阿迪達(dá)斯聲稱在案商標(biāo)是一個(gè)紋樣商標(biāo)（pattern mark）而不是普通圖形商標(biāo)（figurative mark）并且經(jīng)過使用已在歐盟獲得顯著性。

2019年6月19日，歐盟普通法院維持了此前歐盟知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局第二復(fù)審委員會(huì)作出的無效裁定。

對(duì)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的不同解釋

商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)的內(nèi)容是否準(zhǔn)確反映申請(qǐng)人的保護(hù)需求至關(guān)重要。在申請(qǐng)已含內(nèi)容及定義之外再提出別的保護(hù)請(qǐng)求是不可能的。

阿迪達(dá)斯在本案中辯解在案商標(biāo)是一個(gè)紋樣商標(biāo)因此能以各種尺寸、比例進(jìn)行延伸性使用。

但是歐盟普通法院維持了歐盟知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局第二復(fù)審委員會(huì)的認(rèn)定，認(rèn)為商標(biāo)的保護(hù)范圍只限于商標(biāo)所注冊(cè)的樣式。

歐盟普通法院強(qiáng)調(diào)阿迪達(dá)斯在申請(qǐng)時(shí)已標(biāo)明該商標(biāo)為圖形商標(biāo)，并未說明是一個(gè)紋樣商標(biāo)。

因此，在案商標(biāo)僅能就注冊(cè)時(shí)所呈現(xiàn)的尺寸、比例獲得保護(hù)。

使用商標(biāo)與注冊(cè)樣式不同

在案商標(biāo)的核準(zhǔn)保護(hù)范圍看來比阿迪達(dá)斯原本預(yù)期的要窄，這就直接影響了法院對(duì)阿迪達(dá)斯提交的使用證據(jù)的效力的判斷。

某些情況下，使用的商標(biāo)與注冊(cè)樣式略有差異，只要差異不影響到商標(biāo)的顯著特征，使用證據(jù)仍然可以被采信視為有效證據(jù)。

阿迪達(dá)斯在本案中聲稱其商標(biāo)已在歐盟通過使用獲得顯著性并提交了使用證據(jù)，但大部分證據(jù)里顯示的是與注冊(cè)商標(biāo)不同的三道杠圖形。

阿迪達(dá)斯同時(shí)聲稱其實(shí)際使用的商標(biāo)并未改變?cè)诎缸?cè)商標(biāo)的顯著特征，因此這些使用證據(jù)應(yīng)當(dāng)被采信視為有效證據(jù)。

但是歐盟普通法院與歐盟知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局第二復(fù)審委員會(huì)并不認(rèn)可與注冊(cè)樣式有區(qū)別的商標(biāo)的使用證據(jù)的效力，并強(qiáng)調(diào)以下幾點(diǎn)：

1. 商標(biāo)本身非常簡(jiǎn)單時(shí)，使用樣式僅有細(xì)微差異也可能導(dǎo)致對(duì)注冊(cè)樣式的特征的顯著改變；

2. 使用樣式采用了相反的顏色搭配組合，這必然改變了注冊(cè)樣式的顯著特征；

3. 有些證據(jù)顯示實(shí)際使用的標(biāo)志是兩道杠而不是三道杠；

4. 實(shí)際使用的斜條紋組合改變了商標(biāo)注冊(cè)樣式的顯著特征。

商標(biāo)在歐盟是否已獲得顯著性

阿迪達(dá)斯聲稱在案商標(biāo)已通過使用在歐盟獲得顯著性因此應(yīng)當(dāng)維持注冊(cè)。

阿迪達(dá)斯提交的大部分證據(jù)因顯示的實(shí)際使用商標(biāo)與注冊(cè)樣式不同而被認(rèn)定無效，其余有效的證據(jù)只剩下從五個(gè)歐盟成員國(guó)獲得的市場(chǎng)調(diào)查報(bào)告。

雖然可以依照在幾個(gè)成員國(guó)的證據(jù)從而推測(cè)出商標(biāo)在整個(gè)歐盟范圍內(nèi)的使用情況，但在本案中，五個(gè)歐盟成員國(guó)的市場(chǎng)調(diào)查結(jié)果最終被認(rèn)定不足以證明商標(biāo)在歐盟已獲顯著性。

本案對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)人的提示

輸了本案對(duì)阿迪達(dá)斯而言倒不是全盤皆輸。阿迪達(dá)斯還有一些包含多種樣式的三道杠注冊(cè)商標(biāo)。但本案是一個(gè)例子，體現(xiàn)了商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)之前制定策略計(jì)劃的重要性。

阿迪達(dá)斯原本希望得到的保護(hù)范圍比實(shí)際獲得的要大，但商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)時(shí)的一些描述直接影響了法院對(duì)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的解釋。

本案判決還凸顯了商標(biāo)程序及訴訟中證據(jù)的重要性。理解注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的保護(hù)范圍，確保使用方式符合保護(hù)范圍，保持使用的良好記錄及證據(jù)，對(duì)于日后維護(hù)注冊(cè)權(quán)利或者在類似于本案的撤銷案件中維持注冊(cè)，都十分重要。

本案判決也同時(shí)突顯在整個(gè)歐盟范圍內(nèi)證明一個(gè)商標(biāo)的使用將變得更加困難。

上述這些問題都十分復(fù)雜。商標(biāo)權(quán)人需認(rèn)真考慮從一開始就委托一個(gè)商標(biāo)代理律師來辦理業(yè)務(wù)，以確保在打算提交的申請(qǐng)以及注冊(cè)權(quán)利的后續(xù)維護(hù)、維權(quán)及抗辯方面均獲得專業(yè)意見。

附英文版：

Adidas Loses its Stripes

Last week one of Adidas’s three stripes trade mark was declared invalid by the European General Court.

To most of us, three stripes is synonymous with Adidas and its branding. However, the recent decision of the General Court serves as a vital reminder for businesses on the importance of strategic planning before filing your trade marks, even for big brands.

Key Facts

Adidas registered below European Union trade mark in 2014:

阿迪達(dá)斯“三道杠”商標(biāo)被宣告無效！

The registration also included the description: “The mark consists of three parallel equidistant stripes of identical width, applied on the product in any direction”.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office Second Board of Appeal invalidated the registration in 2016 upon a challenge brought by a Belgian shoe company, ruling that the mark is inherently indistinctive and has not acquired distinctiveness throughout EU and should not have been granted registration in 2014.

Adidas then brought the case to the court. Adidas argued that the mark was a pattern mark rather than a figurative mark and has acquired distinctiveness in EU through use.

On 19th June 2019 the General Court confirmed the invalidity of the above European Union Trade Mark registration, upholding an earlier decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office Second Board of Appeal.

Interpretation of the Mark as Registered

It is essential that a trade mark application correctly sets out exactly what the applicant is seeking to protect. It is not possible to claim a scope of protection which is over and above what is presented and defined in the application.

Adidas sought to argue that the mark was a pattern mark and therefore capable of extending to use in various dimensions and proportions.

However, the General Court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision that the scope of protection was limited to the mark in the exact form registered.

The General Court highlighted that Adidas had indicated in its application that the mark was a figurative mark and had made no reference to the mark being a pattern mark.

As a result, the registration could only extend to the lines presented in the dimensions and proportions reflected in the mark subject of the registration.

Evidence of Use of Marks which Differed to the Mark as Registered

The scope of protection granted to the registration was therefore narrower than Adidas originally intended and this had a direct impact upon the Court’s assessment of the evidence of use Adidas had submitted in the proceedings.

In certain circumstances it is possible to rely upon evidence of use of a trade mark which differs to a mark as registered if the differences have no impact upon the distinctive character of the mark.

In defending the invalidity action Adidas argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness in the EU and submitted evidence of it in use to support that claim. However a significant proportion of the evidence submitted related to use of three stripes in forms which differed to the mark as registered.

Adidas argued that the evidence related to use of variations which did not alter the distinctive character of the registered mark, and submitted that the evidence should therefore be accepted.

However the General Court agreed with the Board of Appeal’s decision to refuse the evidence of use of marks which differed to the mark as registered, reiterating the following points:

(i) where a trade mark is extremely simple, even a slight difference could lead to a significant alteration to the characteristics of the mark as it had been registered;

(ii) use of the mark at issue in the form where the colour scheme is reversed necessarily alters the distinctive character of that mark

(iii) some of the evidence showed a sign with two instead of three stripes and

(iv) the use of sloping stripes altered the distinctive character of that mark.

Acquired Distinctiveness throughout the EU

Adidas’s defence to the invalidity action was based on its claim that the mark had acquired distinctive character throughout the EU by virtue of the use made of it and was therefore capable of registration on that basis.

As a large amount of the evidence submitted was deemed to relate to marks which were not included in the scope of the registration, Adidas was essentially left with five market surveys from five EU member states to support its claim.

Whilst it is possible to extrapolate evidence in a number of member states to the entire territory of the EU, in this instance it was held that five market surveys in five EU member states was not sufficient.

Key Points for the Reader

All is not lost for Adidas as it does own a number of trade mark registrations for various forms of its three stripes mark. However, this case is an example of the importance of strategic planning before filing a trade mark application.

Adidas was seeking to claim a broader scope of rights than it was granted and the drafting of the application impacted upon the Court’s interpretation of the registration.

The decision also highlights the importance of evidence in trade mark proceedings. Understanding what your registration protects and ensuring that your use reflects what is protected, as well as retaining good records of such use, is very important should you later seek to enforce your registered rights, or as here have to defend an action to cancel your registration.

Finally, the decision highlights the increasing difficulty associated with proving use throughout the EU.

All of these issues are extremely complex, and you should therefore seriously consider instructing a Chartered Trade Mark Attorney from the outset in order to ensure that you are properly advised on your proposed application and on the subsequent maintenance, enforcement and defence of your registered rights.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Graeme Murray (Associate) 麥?zhǔn)似嬗?guó)劍橋辦公室

譯者：高燕 (Associate) 麥?zhǔn)似姹本┺k公室

編輯：IPRdaily王穎校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀（點(diǎn)擊圖文，閱讀全文）

倒計(jì)時(shí)！2019年“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)服務(wù)萬里行”四川站，重磅來襲！

開年重磅！尋找40位40歲以下企業(yè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)精英（40 Under 40）

“投稿”請(qǐng)投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

阿迪達(dá)斯“三道杠”商標(biāo)被宣告無效！

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn）

本文來自IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://jupyterflow.com/”

阿迪達(dá)斯“三道杠”商標(biāo)被宣告無效！

阿迪達(dá)斯“三道杠”商標(biāo)被宣告無效！