In 1997 (T-26\/21), 1998 (T-27\/21) and 2005 (T-28\/21), the applicant, Apple Inc., obtained registration of the word sign
\nTHINK DIFFERENT as an EU trade mark. The goods in respect of which the registration was sought include IT
\nproducts such as computers, computer terminals, keyboards, computer hardware, software and multimedia
\nproducts.<\/p>\n
In 2016, the intervener, Swatch AG, filed with EUIPO three applications for revocation of the contested marks. The
\ncompany claimed that the contested marks had not been put to genuine use for the goods concerned for an
\nuninterrupted period of five years.<\/p>\n
On 24 August 2018, the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) revoked the
\ncontested marks in respect of all the goods concerned, with effect from 14 October 2016. The appeals brought by
\nApple against the decisions of the Cancellation Division were dismissed by the Fourth Board of Appeal. In January
\n2021, Apple Inc. brought three actions before the General Court of the European Union.<\/p>\n
By its judgment in those three cases, the General Court dismisses the actions.<\/p>\n
According to the Court, the onus was on Apple Inc. to prove to EUIPO that those marks had been put to genuine use
\nfor the goods concerned during the five years preceding 14 October 2016 (the date on which the applications for
\nrevocation were filed), namely from 14 October 2011 to 13 October 2016.<\/p>\n
By its actions, Apple Inc. complained inter alia that the Board of Appeal did not take into account the high level of
\nattention of the relevant public when assessing whether the contested marks had been put to genuine use. In
\nparticular, it disputed the Board of Appeal\u2019s conclusion that the relevant public would carelessly overlook the labels
\naffixed to the packaging of an iMac computer which bore the contested marks. According to the Court, Apple has
\nnot demonstrated that taking into consideration a high level of attention would have led the Board of Appeal to find that the consumer would examine the packaging in any detail and that he or she would pay particular attention to the contested marks. In addition, the Court rejects Apple complaint that the Board of Appeal wrongly failed to
\ntake into account the sales figures of iMac computers throughout the European Union, put forward in the witness
\nstatement of 23 March 2017. The annual reports for the years 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2015, attached to that
\nstatement, contain only information on the net worldwide sales of iMac computers and do not provide any details
\nas to the sales figures for iMac computers in the European Union.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Apple criticised the Board of Appeal for having concluded that the contested marks were devoid of
\nany distinctive character. The Court holds that that argument is based on a misreading of the contested decisions
\nand points out that the Board of Appeal did not deny the words \u2018THINK DIFFERENT\u2019 any distinctive character, but
\nattributed to them a rather weak distinctive character.<\/p>\n
The Court notes that, contrary to what Apple claims, the Board of Appeal\u2019s conclusion as to the distinctiveness of the
\ncontested marks is not contradicted by a body of evidence aimed at proving that they have been put to genuine
\nuse. While it is true that the items of evidence of genuine use filed with EUIPO include numerous press articles
\nnoting the success of the advertising campaign entitled \u2018THINK DIFFERENT\u2019 at the time of its launch in 1997, those
\npress articles predate the relevant period by over 10 years.<\/p>\n
The Court holds that no infringement of the right to be heard can be found in this case. Furthermore, in its view,
\nthe Board of Appeal stated to the requisite legal standard, in the contested decisions, the reasons as to the
\nquestion whether Apple had adduced proof of genuine use of the contested marks.<\/p>\n
General Court of the European Union, PRESS RELEASE No 97\/22, Luxembourg, 8 June 2022<\/p>\n
Source: https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/jcms\/upload\/docs\/application\/pdf\/2022-06\/cp220097en.pdf<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The General Court dismisses the actions brought by Apple Inc. against the decisions of EUIPO revoking the
\nword sign THINK DIFFERENT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized-en-2"],"acf":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4314"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4315,"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4314\/revisions\/4315"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}