Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62007CJ0529
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2009:361
• Docket Number: C-529/07
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 11 June 2009

Case C-529/07

Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG

v

Franz Hauswirth GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof)

(Three‑dimensional Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 51(1)(b) – Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is ‘acting in bad faith’ when filing an application for a Community trade mark)

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 51(1(b))

In order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, 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.

A presumption of knowledge, by the applicant, of the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought may arise inter alia from general knowledge in the economic sector concerned of such use, and that knowledge can be inferred, inter alia, from the duration of such use. The more that use is long-standing, the more probable it is that the applicant will, when filing the application for registration, have knowledge of it. However, that presumption is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant was acting in bad faith.

The applicant’s intention at the time when he files the application for registration is a subjective factor which must be determined by reference to the objective circumstances of the particular case. Accordingly, the intention to prevent a third party from marketing a product may, in certain circumstances, be an element of bad faith on the part of the applicant, in particular where the applicant does not intend to use the sign, but wants only to prevent a third party from entering the market.

The fact a third party has long used a sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the mark applied for and that that sign enjoys some degree of legal protection is one of the factors relevant to the determination of whether the applicant was acting in bad faith. In such a case, the applicant’s sole aim in taking advantage of the rights conferred by the Community trade mark might be to compete unfairly with a competitor who is using a sign which, because of characteristics of its own, has by that time obtained some degree of legal protection. That said, it cannot however be excluded that even in such circumstances, and in particular when several producers were using, on the market, identical or similar signs for identical or similar products capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought, the applicant’s registration of the sign may be in pursuit of a legitimate objective. That may in particular be the case where the applicant knows, when filing the application for registration, that a third party, who is a newcomer in the market, is trying to take advantage of that sign by copying its presentation, and the applicant seeks to register the sign with a view to preventing use of that presentation.

Moreover, the nature of the mark applied for may also be relevant to determining whether the applicant is acting in bad faith. In a case where the sign concerned consists of the entire shape and presentation of a product, the fact that the applicant is acting in bad faith might more readily be established where the competitors’ freedom to choose the shape of a product and its presentation is restricted by technical or commercial factors, so that the trade mark proprietor is able to prevent his competitors not merely from using an identical or similar sign, but also from marketing comparable products.

Furthermore, in order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith, consideration may be given to the extent of the reputation enjoyed by a sign at the time when the application for its registration as a Community trade mark is filed. The extent of that reputation might justify the applicant’s interest in ensuring a wider legal protection for his sign.

(see paras 39-44, 46-52, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

11 June 2009 (*)

(Three-dimensional Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 51(1)(b) – Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is ‘acting in bad faith’ when filing an application for a Community trade mark)

In Case C‑529/07,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 2 October 2007, received at the Court on 28 November 2007, in the proceedings

Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG

v

Franz Hauswirth GmbH,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), A. Tizzano, E. Levits and J.-J. Kasel, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: K. Sztranc-Sławiczek, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 November 2008,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG, by H.-G. Kamann and G.K. Hild, Rechtsanwälte,

– Franz Hauswirth GmbH, by H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt,

– the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, acting as Agent,

– the Swedish Government, by A. Falk and A. Engman, acting as Agents,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by H. Krämer, acting as Agent,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 March 2009,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (‘Lindt & Sprüngli’), established in Switzerland, and Franz Hauswirth GmbH (‘Franz Hauswirth’), established in Austria.

3 The essential objective of infringement proceedings brought by Lindt & Sprüngli was that Franz Hauswirth should cease producing or marketing within the European Union chocolate bunnies which were so similar to the chocolate bunny protected by the three-dimensional Community trade mark of which Lindt & Sprüngli is the proprietor (‘the three-dimensional mark at issue’) that there was a likelihood of confusion.

4 The counterclaim of Franz Hauswirth for a...