Skip to main content
Publication

General Court finds genuine use of TVR trade mark

Locations

United Kingdom

EU General Court in TVR v OHIM (T-398/13) confirms that genuine use doesn't need to be continuous and can include a period of insolvency. Use within the UK alone was sufficient to support a CTM.

The European Union General Court has, in TVR Automotive Ltd v OHIM (T-398/13), confirmed that genuine use does not need to be continuous and can even include a period of insolvency. It has also confirmed that use within the UK alone was, in this case, sufficient to support a Community Trade Mark.

Background

TVR Italia Srl filed an application in 2007 for the figurative TVR Italia mark for goods including "automobiles" in class 12.

TVR

In 2008, the predecessor of TVR Automotive Limited filed an opposition against TVR Italia's application on the basis of rights which included an earlier Community Trade Mark. The opposition was partially successful, however, the OHIM Board of Appeal subsequently found that the opponent had not provided sufficient proof of genuine use and so rejected the opposition. TVR Automotive appealed the decision.

The effect of the earlier decision

TVR Automotive alleged that the Board of Appeal had failed to take into account an earlier decision of the Cancellation division which had upheld the use of the mark. The Court noted that while the OHIM is not bound to follow a previous decision such decisions are, however, factors which should be taken into consideration. The OHIM should not ignore the findings made in a final cancellation decision where there are opposition proceedings between the same parties, relating to the same subject-matter and based on the same grounds and evidence. In this case the relevant periods for assessing genuine use were different but overlapped and therefore the subject-matter of the two proceedings was not entirely identical.

Genuine Use

The Court confirmed that a mark may be put to genuine use for only part of the five-year period. Otherwise, any disruption which prevents use of the earlier trade mark for a time might be sufficient to undermine the proprietor's rights.

In this case the marks were used for a substantial part of the five year period. As the use was in relation to high-end sports cars, a market with low demand and production to order, there was no need to furnish accounting documents setting out sales figures. Internet articles proved that the cars had been marketed in the UK, which would be sufficient from a territorial point of view, and demonstrates a certain scale of use during the relevant five year period. Even though there was a dip in production due to the insolvency, there was genuine use for the greater part of the five year period which was sufficient to enforce the rights.

Conclusion

It is reassuring that the Court has taken a realistic approach to genuine use. Forcing an owner to show continuous use during the whole five year period would not reflect the reality that many genuine businesses face challenges and interruptions to their trade. In difficult times of this sort, it is often the reputation of the brand that can see a business come out the other side of the crisis. It would be a cruel twist of the law if such a disruption could also strip a business of its trade mark rights.

It is also good news that the General Court's interpretation of Leno Merken found that genuine use within the UK would be sufficient to preserve a Community Trade Mark. This finding is in direct opposition to Hacon J's controversial interpretation of Leno Merken in the recent Sofa Workshop case. Practitioners will be watching with interest to see how the law around territorial use of Community Trade Marks develops.

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in July 2015. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

 

 

Sign up to our email digest

Click to subscribe or manage your email preferences.

SUBSCRIBE