Beatles Stop 'BEATLE' Electric Mobility Aids Trade Mark

Author:Van Bael Bellis
Profession:Van Bael & Bellis

In its judgment of 29 March 2012, the General Court ("GC") confirmed the decision of the Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market (the "OHIM") rejecting an application by You-Q BV ("You-Q") to register the word "BEATLE" as a figurative Community trade mark ("CTM") for electric mobility aids (Case T-369/10).

On 27 January 2004, You-Q filed an application with the OHIM to register the following figurative sign as a CTM in respect of electric mobility aids:

On 6 May 2005, Apple Corps Ltd, a corporation founded by the members of the rock band The Beatles, ("Apple Corps") objected to this application before the OHIM on the basis of several earlier trade marks, including the word mark "BEATLES" and the following figurative trade mark:

These earlier trade marks cover a very broad range of goods and services, but not the goods for which You-Q sought to register its CTM.

By decision of 31 May 2010, based on Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (the "CTM Regulation"), the OHIM rejected You-Q's application. The OHIM found that it was probable that You-Q would take unfair advantage of the reputation of Apple Corps' trade marks in view of the strong reputation of those earlier trade marks, the similarity between the signs at issue and the overlap of the relevant public. According to the OHIM, there was, consequently, an important risk that detriment to Apple Corps' trade marks would take place.

You-Q lodged an appeal before the GC against the decision of 31 May 2010, arguing that there was no proof that the CTM for which registration was sought would affect the repute of Apple Corps' trade marks. To find an infringement of Article 8(5) of the CTM Regulation, the GC assessed (i) the reputation of the earlier trade mark; (ii) the level of similarity between You-Q's sign and the earlier trade marks; (iii) whether there is a link between the signs in question; and (iv) whether the use of the trade mark applied for is liable to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

The GC sided with the OHIM on the first aspect stating that, in the light of all the documents and information submitted by Apple Corps, the OHIM rightfully found that Apple Corps' trade marks have an immense reputation for sound recordings, video recordings and films and also have a reputation for merchandising goods.

Second, the GC found that the OHIM was also...

To continue reading