Gepubliceerd op dinsdag 14 juni 2011
IEF 9779
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Bewijskracht van kopie

Gerecht EU 14 juni 2011, Zaak T-68/10 (Sphere Time / OHMI - Punch)

Modelrecht. Gemeenschapsmodel (nr. 325494-0002). Nietigheidsprocedure over een geregistreerd gemeenschapsmodel horloge aan een sleutelkoord. Eerdere openbaarmaking model. Bewijskracht van kopie ipv origineel als ingebracht processtuk. Gerecht bevestigd oordeel van kamer van beroep dat nieuw en eigen karakter ontbreekt. Art. 4, 6, 7 en 61-64 Vo (EC) 6/2002

39      The provision of the original of that document could, depending on the circumstances, be relevant if the copy were illegible or if it there were indications that the document had been tampered with in order to modify its content. The applicant does not raise submissions to that effect and the examination of the shipping invoice, as provided to OHIM, does not give rise to questions in that regard.

40      Consequently, the fact that a copy of the shipping invoice was provided, rather than the original, does not affect the probative nature of the document produced either.

82      Next, the fact that the lanyard of the SYMBICORT design is represented in black is not significant, given that no colour has been claimed for the contested design. Similarly, inasmuch as the contested design represents a promotional item, it is reasonable to hold that, when it is used, it will carry a trade mark. Consequently, the presence of the SYMBICORT mark in the SYMBICORT design does not amount to a significant difference either.

83      Finally, the details of the watch cases and the watch faces of the two designs are not sufficiently striking to have any influence on the overall impression produced by the designs. That is a fortiori the case since, as is apparent from paragraphs 58 to 64 above, the watch’s hands and the rectangular element affixed to the face of the watch are not among the elements that are protected by the contested design.

84      In light of all the foregoing, it must be held that the contested design and the SYMBICORT design produce the same overall impression on the informed user. Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct in arriving at that same conclusion, at paragraph 22 of the contested decision, and in inferring therefrom that the contested design was devoid of individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 and was therefore to be declared invalid.

88      It should be borne in mind that the concept of misuse of powers has a precisely defined scope in European Union law and refers to cases where an administrative authority has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on it. In that respect, it has been consistently held that a decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken for purposes other than those stated (Joined Cases T‑551/93 and T‑231/94 to T‑234/94 Industrias Pesqueras Campos and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II‑247, paragraph 168, and Case T‑19/99 DKV v OHIM (COMPANYLINE) [2000] ECR II‑1, paragraph 33).

Lees de uitspraak hier (link)
GModVo 6/2002