Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
WEDNESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2013
General Court: Cardio Manager v. Cardio Messenger

In Case T-416/11, Cardios Sistemas (Brazil) filed a CTM application for goods in Class 9 and 10 for CARDIO MANAGER in 2006 which was opposed by Biotronik (Germany) on the basis of earlier German rights CARDIOMESSENGER registered in Classes 9 and 10 in 2008. CTM applicant requested proof of genuine use in accordance with Art. 42(2) and (3) CTMR.

The items of evidence provided by Biotronik concerning the use of the trade mark CardioMessenger in Germany, for the period between 21 January 2003 and 20 January 2008, were the following:

–        a presentation entitled ‘Product Roadmap Health Services 2003’, written by Mr Hans-Jürgen Wildau, one of Biotronik’s Vice-Presidents;

–        scientific publications referring in places to the ‘CardioMessenger’ device;

–        extracts from an instruction manual for the ‘CardioMessenger’ product;

–        a number of Internet pages;

–        packaging for products intended for a ‘CardioMessenger’ kit;

–        a formal statement giving the number of patients worldwide (39 481) who were provided between 2000 and 2009 with the ‘CardioMessenger’ product as an integral part of a ‘Home Monitoring’ system, of whom 17% were in Germany (6 700 patients).

The Opposition Division and BoA found that the evidence submitted by Biotronik, whether assessed on an individual basis or as a whole, could not be regarded as proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark. Even though Biotronik had shown that it had manufactured, and to some extent marketed, a device known as the ‘CardioMessenger’ that can be used by patients suffering from heart conditions, it had not produced – in relation to Germany, the country of reference – solid evidence concerning, in particular, turnover or advertising, or the nature and extent of the use. Biotronik failed to provide evidence in various forms, such as invoices, price lists, catalogues or other such items. As regards the presentation document written by Mr Hans-Jürgen Wildau and dating from 2003, Biotronik does not contest that the document was intended for in-house purposes only and does not demonstrate that the ‘CardioMessenger’ device was placed on the market in Germany in 2003

Lastly, the Board of Appeal found that the statement which Biotronik had submitted, for the first time before the BoA did not sufficiently compensate for the lack of evidence of genuine use of the earlier trade mark.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 12.08
Tags: General court, genuine use, cardio messenger, germany,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3428
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365
POST ADDRESS

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester
LE4 9HA

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox