25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/12

(Joined Cases C-217/13 and C-218/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1) and (3) - Mark consisting of a contourless red colour, registered for banking services - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Distinctive character acquired through use - Evidence - Consumer survey - Time when distinctive character through use is acquired - Burden of proof))

2014/C 282/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Oberbank AG (C-217/13), Banco Santander SA (C-218/13), Santander Consumer Bank AG (C-218/13)

Defendant: Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband eV

Operative part of the judgment

1)Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law according to which, in the context of proceedings raising the question whether a contourless colour mark has acquired a distinctive character through use, it is necessary in every case that a consumer survey indicate a degree of recognition of at least 70 %.

2)Where a Member State has not exercised the power laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, the first sentence of Article 3(3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of invalidity proceedings in respect of a mark which is intrinsically devoid of distinctive character, in order to assess whether that mark has acquired a distinctive character through use, it is necessary to examine whether such character was acquired before the date of filing of the application for registration of that mark. It is irrelevant in that regard that the proprietor of the mark at issue maintains that the mark has, in any event, acquired a distinctive character through use after the date of filing of the application for registration, but before the date of registration of that mark.

3)Where a Member State does not exercise the power laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, the first sentence of Article 3(3) of that directive must be interpreted to the effect that it does not preclude, in the context of invalidity proceedings, the mark at issue from being declared invalid where it is intrinsically devoid of distinctive character and the proprietor of that mark has failed to show that it has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it before the date of filing of the application for registration.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.