Sony secures revocation win at EU court
The EU General Court ruled against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in a revocation case involving Sony today.
Sony had applied to revoke an EU trademark filed by Gedelson in August 2000 for the figurative sign ‘Vieta’. Goods covered under the trademark relate to audio and computer devices including CDs, loudspeaker systems, video cameras, and “apparatus for the reproduction of sound and images”.
The trademark was registered in 2001 under the number 1,790,674. In December 2002, the trademark was transferred to Spain-based Marpefa. The trademark was then renewed until August 2020.
Sony applied to revoke the trademark in November 2011, alleging that it had not been put to genuine use in the EU for five years and that there was no “proper” reason for its non-use.
Marpefa responded by claiming that the trademark had been put to use, at least in Spain, for the relevant time period.
The EUIPO’s Cancellation Division dismissed the application for revocation for some of the goods covered by the trademark, but allowed it for others.
Sony then appealed to the Second Board of Appeal against the part of the Cancellation Division’s decision that dismissed its revocation application, but the appeal board dismissed the appeal.
Sony appealed to the General Court, arguing that the protection afforded by the contested mark for “apparatus for the reproduction of sound and images” applied to a category of goods that is “far too broad and should be divided into subcategories”.
The General Court handed down its decision in December 2015, finding that the term “apparatus for the reproduction of sound and images” was not defined sufficiently “precisely and narrowly”.
The case was referred to the Fourth Board of Appeal, which held that it had to examine whether the mark had been put to genuine use for the apparatus category. It found that there had been genuine use.
In its plea for annulment of the Fourth Board of Appeal’s decision, Sony said that the appeal board had incorrectly held it was entitled to re-examine the question of whether the apparatus term was defined sufficiently.
The General Court found that the appeal board had “clearly disregarded” the previous General Court’s judgment, and annulled the contested decision.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
Report: US patent case filings slide again
Devil is in the (angel) detail: Clarins TM opposition dismissed
Fieldfisher hires Dentons’ former UK head of IP
