RESUMÉ:
AN 2009 00025 – MP945961 – VietinBank <fig>
Sagen drejer sig om anmodning om registrering af
VietinBank som figurmærke i Danmark. Anmodningen blev afvist af Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen
med henvisning til, at betegnelsen ”bank” henhører under Lov om finansiel
virksomhed, hvorfor sagen ikke kan behandles efter den danske
varemærkelovgivning. Efterfølgende blev ansøgningen om registrering ikke
imødekommet. Ansøgeren indbragte afgørelsen for Ankenævnet for Patenter og
Varemærker, som stadfæstede den påklagede afgørelse.
KENDELSE:
År 2010, den 23. marts afsagde Ankenævnet for
Patenter og Varemærker
(Hans Christian Thomsen, Michael Dorn, Sten Juul
Petersen, Hanne Kirk Deichmann)
v/PHAM & ASSOCIATES, Vietnam
over
Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsens afgørelse af 19. september 2008 vedrørende
sagen MP945961 – VietinBank <fig>
Ankenævnet har behandlet sagen skriftligt.
Ankenævnet
udtaler:
Af de af Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen i
afgørelsen af 15. oktober 2009 og i Styrelsens høringsudtalelse af 5. januar
2010 anførte grunde tiltræder Ankenævnet, at firgurmærket VietinBank nægtes
registrering, idet betingelserne herfor i lov om finansiel virksomhed ikke ses
at være opfyldt.
Herefter bestemmes:
Den påklagede
afgørelse stadfæstes.
Sagens
baggrund:
Den 27. december 2007 notificerede World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen om, at
Vietnam Bank for Industry and Trade, Vietnam som indehaver af den
internationale varemærkeregistrering MP945961 VietinBank <fig>, havde designeret
Danmark den 11. oktober 2007.
Varemærket omfatter:
Class 36: Fund raising and capital investment; credit activities; banking services; fiduciary services; financial and monetary services; securities; insurance services.
Anmodningen blev afslået med brev af 19. september
2008 med følgende begrundelse:
”..Absolute grounds for refusal (e.g. lack of distinctive character)
We have found that the designation is contrary to Danish legislation. The mark VIETINBANK contains the word BANK which we find contrary to another law than the Danish Trade Marks Act, namely the Danish Financial Business Act number LBK nr 376 af 22/05/2008 section 7 (5) “Banks have exclusive right to use the words ”bank”, ”sparekasse” or ”andelskasse” in their name. Other undertakings established by law, except for banks, may not use names or expressions for their activities that create the impression that they are a bank. A bank may not describe its activities in a way that may create the impression that it is Denmark's central bank.”
Consequently, we have sent a provisional refusal to the International Bureau stating the grounds for refusal as well as the goods and services affected by the refusal, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.
As stated in the Notification of Provisional Refusal under General Information you may request a review of the provisional refusal.
Irrespective of the above your trademark may be registered if, before the filing of the application in consequence of the use which has been made thereof, it has acquired a distinctive character. You must be able to file evidence of such use.
We consider use of a mark to be established, when it is common knowledge that the mark is used by the applicant for the goods or services applied for. The mark must have been used intensively or for a considerable period of time. The mark must be used as a trademark for the goods and services covered by the application.
Documentation for the establishment of use
can be a statement from an industrial association or a market survey. For marks
used for a considerable period, advertisements, brochures, invoices etc. can be
used as documentation. Please note that such documentation must be dated.
Information
about search results
We have conducted a search in the relevant Danish registers for earlier trademarks, company names amd personal names.
Please find the result of our search by
following the link below: http://onlineweb.dkpto.dk/pvsonline/Varemaerke?action=104&sagID=MP945961&language=en
Please note that the search result has not been examined for relative grounds. You can request an examination of relative grounds by contacting our Office.
Please be informed that there might be conflicting Community trademarks and/or trademarks under the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement of which we either had no knowledge at all or about which we had no information as to the extent of the trademarks at the time of our search. You should also be aware that other rights which are not included in our search, such as design and copyrights, may serve as relative grounds.
General
information concerning the relative grounds for refusal
Please note that the rights mentioned in the search report can act as possible grounds for refusal, only if the holders of the cited rights should file an opposition against the validity of the designation in Denmark.
Therefore you may choose to have the designation published in the Danish Trademark Gazette irrespective of the earlier rights. This allows a third party to file an opposition within a period of 2 months from the date of publication.
Should an opposition be filed against the designation, we will inform you accordingly and invite you to comment on the opposition before the Danish Patent and Trademark Office makes a decision. If no opposition is filed within the time limit, the designation will be granted full validity in Denmark.
If you wish to overcome the earlier rights before the designation is published, you can choose to:
Supply us with a letter of consent from the proprietors of the earlier rights, permitting you to make use of the trademark in Denmark and have the trademark published in the Danish Trademark Gazette
and/or
Limit the list of goods and services in order to avoid that the designation covers goods and services similar to those covered by the earlier rights. Please note that a limitation of the list of goods and services should be submitted to the International Bureau (Form MM6) according to Rule 25 of the Common Regulations.
The possibility of overcoming earlier rights through a written consent and/or a limitation of the list of goods and services is also at hand during an opposition procedure…”
Med brev af 26. november 2008 fremførte Vietnam
Bank for Industry and Trade v/Pham & Assosiates følgende i forbindelse med
styrelsens foreløbige afslag:
”… As to the distinctiveness of the Trademark "VIETINBANK & Device",
"VIETINBANK" are combinated words to create an invented word that has no
meaning. Thus, "VIETINBANK" is distinctive.
Regarding the ground for refusal due to the word "Bank", please be confirmed
that the owner of the Trademark "VIETINBANK & Device" is a Vietnamese Bank.
Normally, banks use the trademark containing the word "BANK" in their
trademark. If you accept the use of the word "BANK" in the Trademark in the
case of our client, we will send you a copy of the Business License of the
Bank and its English version. Please let us know whether this document is
required to notarize or legalize.
Thank you in advance for your assistance, and we look forward to hearing
from you,..”
Med
brev af 9. december 2008 svarer Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen bl.a.:
”… However, the problem with the Trademark is not whether or not the mark has
distinctive character. The problem is that Trademarks containing the word BANK
needs to be licensed to run a bank in Denmark.
This is
governed by the Danish Financial Business Act, LBK no. 376 of 22/05/2008
section 7 (5).
In order to
get the permission, you need to file an application with The Danish Financial
Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet). This is a link to their homepage in
English: http://www.dfsa.dk/sw99.asp
Therefore
we cannot accept your Trademark in Denmark unless you get the permission from
the The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet). ….”
Med mail af 23. februar 2009 oplyser Pham
Associates, at de har tilskrevet Finanstilsynet og har fået svar tilbage. De
håber hermed, at Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen vil trække sit afslag tilbage.
Af svaret fra Finanstilsynet fremgår, at der ikke
er noget til hindring for i Lov om finansiel virksomhed, at Vietnam Bank for
Industry and Trade bruger navnet VietinBank i Danmark. Finanstilsynet gør dog
samtidig opmærksom på, at, det at bruge navnet ikke er det samme som, at
Vietnam Bank for Industry and Trade må drive bankvirksomhed i Danmark.
Med brev af 1. april 2009 fastholder Styrelsen sit
foreløbige afslag på ansøgningen fra Vietnam Bank for Industry and Trade:
”… Your question to the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority is not included in the letter, but from the answer from Danish Financial Supervisory Authority it seems that you have only asked them about their practice on applications including the word BANK and not about a permission.
The letter
from Danish Financial Supervisory Authority does not contain a permission of any kind.
The main
rule, which is stated in section 7 (5) of the Danish Financial Business Act
(LBK no. 897 of 04/09/2008), is that in order for us to grant the registration
of this Trademark, we will need a permission from Danish Financial Supervisory
Authority.
Exception
from this rule can however be made.
In section
30 and 31 is stated under which conditions the Danish Financial Supervisory
Authority might have the possibility to make this exception to the main rule.
If you can
prove towards the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority that you have
permission to use the very same Trademark as a company name for financial
business in your own country, then you may also be able to use this name in
Denmark as stated in section 32.
This
exception only applies where company name is in accordance with the trademark
applied for.
We therefore maintain our provisional refusal of 19 September 2008.
In order to
get the permission, you still need to file an application with The Danish
Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet) or contact them with regards
to the possibilities of using the exception to the main rule in section 32...”
Med brev af 15. oktober
2009 meddeles ansøger det endelige afslag:
“…We refuse your designation because your trademark is contrary to law.
The mark VIETINBANK contains the word BANK which we find contrary to another law than the Danish Trade Marks Act, namely the Danish Financial Business Act number LBK nr 376 af 22/05/2008 section 7 (5) "Banks have exclusive right to use the words "bank", "sparekasse" or "andelskasse" in their name. Other undertakings established by law, except for banks, may not use names or expressions for their activities that create the impression that they are a bank. A bank may not describe its activities in a way that may create the impression that it is Denmark's central bank."
The decision has been made pursuant to the Danish Trade Marks Act Section 20 (2), cf. Section 14 (i)…”
Med brev af 30. november 2009 ankede Pham & Associates på vegne Vietnam
Bank for Industry and Trade Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsens afgørelse til Ankenævnet
for Patenter og Varemærker med påstand om, at Styrelsens afgørelse ændres,
således at det ansøgte mærke registreres som ansøgt.
Klager argumenterer som følger:
”… to file an appeal against to the decision of the Swedish PTO mentioned in the letter of October 15, 2009 as to the refusal of protection of the Trademark “VIETINBANK & Device” under International Registration No. 945961 in Denmark with the following grounds:
The Trademark Registration “VIETINBANK & Device” has refused to protect in Denmark since the mark “VIETINBANK & Device” contains the word “BANK” which contraries to another law than the Danish Trademark Act, namely the Danish Financial Business Act No. LBK nr 376 af 22/05/2008 section 7(5) “Banks have exclusive right to use the words “bank”, “sparekasse” or “andelskasse” in their name.
The Danish Patent and Trademark Office suggested that the Trademark will be accepted if the owner of the Trademark to obtain the permission by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority to use the words “BANK” in the Trademark in Denmark.
As such suggestion, we have contacted the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority to have the permission by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority to use the words “BANK” in the Trademark in Denmark. On February 19, 2009 we had a letter from the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority not prohibit VIETINBANK from registering and using the name in Denmark (see the letter of February 19, 2009 of the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority). However, the Trademark examiner did not accept and still requested a permission from the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority. Although the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority explained further concerning the interpretation of the current regulations in the Financial Business Act in their letter of May 18, 2009, finally, the examiner has refused the Trademark “VIETINBANK” as mentioned in the letter of October 15, 2009,
In our opinion, Vietnam Bank For Industry and Trade (Vietinbank) is a credit institution in Vietnam and according to the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority, uses the name VIETINBANK to register as a trademark in Denmark is not prohibited. That means the registration of VIETINBANK in Denmark is not contrary to the Danish Financial Business Act.
Enclosed herewith are the following documents:
1) Letters of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office of April 1, 2009 and October 15, 2009
2) Letters of the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority of February 19, 2009 and May 18, 2009.
We do hope that with these arguments and evidence, The Board of Appeal for Patent and Trademarks will withdraw the refusal of the registration and accept to protect our client’s Trademark in Denmark...”
Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen er blevet hørt i
sagen og fremkom den 5. januar 2010 med følgende udtalelse:
”… Indledningsvist skal bemærkes, at det følger af styrelsens praksis, at
indeholder et ansøgt varemærke en forbeholdt betegnelse, såsom ”apotek”,
”bank”, ”advokat”, ”A/S”, ”ApS” etc., hvis anvendelse er reguleret eller
beskyttet ved lov, vil varemærket alene kunne antages til registrering, såfremt
ansøgerens anvendelse af varemærket i den form og med det omfang det er
ansøgt, er tilladt efter den pågældende lov. Ansøgningen vil derimod blive
afslået under henvisning til, at varemærket er i strid med lov, såfremt og i
det omfang dette krav ikke er opfyldt.
Retningslinjerne for vurdering af registrerbarheden af varemærker
indeholdende de forbeholdte betegnelser er udstukket i bl.a. Højesterets dom af
den 4. december 2002 i sagen 420/2001, vedrørende varemærket BETON-APOTEKET.
Det kan bl.a. udledes af dommen, at der ved vurderingen af om et ansøgt
varemærke er i strid med lov om apoteksvirksomhed, skal tages skyldigt hensyn
til om varemærket ved dets anvendelse kan give anledning til forveksling
med lægemiddelhandel. Er en sådan forveksling mulig, vil varemærket stride mod
denne lovs sundhedsmæssige beskyttelsesformål.
Det følger af Østre Landsrets dom af den 23. november 1998 i sagen
S-1723-98 (trykt i U.1999.330Ø), at en tilsvarende vurdering finder anvendelse
i forhold til den forbeholdte betegnelse ”bank”. Dommen vedrører fortolkningen
af den dagældende bank- og sparekasselovs § 2, stk. 1, der svarer til den
nugældende § 7, stk. 5 i lov om finansiel virksomhed. Østre Landsret fandt, at
navnet ”Image Bank” ikke var i strid med bank- og sparekasseloven, og der
henvistes i den forbindelse bl.a. til, at brugen af ordet ”bank” i navnet
”Image Bank” i forbindelse med et billedbureau, var brug af ordet på en anden
måde end i betydningen ”pengeinstitut”, ligesom denne brug ikke kunne give
anledning til forveksling med et pengeinstitut.
Denne fortolkning af rammerne for brugen af den forbeholdte betegnelse
”bank” er også lagt til grund af Finanstilsynet i deres afgørelse af den 26.
november 2004, hvori der bl.a. anføres følgende:
”Finanstilsynet har vurderet, at
navnet "X" Data Bank ApS og binavnet Data Bank "Y" ApS er i
strid med § 7, stk. 5, 2. pkt., i lov om finansiel virksomhed.
I Østre Landsretsdommen UfR 1999.330
Ø kan det udledes, at betegnelsen "bank" skal bruges i betydningen
pengeinstitut, eller der skal være tale om en forvekslingsmulighed. Er et af
disse forhold tilstede, er navnet i strid med § 7, stk. 5, i lov om finansiel virksomhed.”
I nærværende sag har klager henvist til, at Finanstilsynet i brev af den
19. februar 2009 har meddelt klager, at Finanstilsynet intet ser til hinder
for, at klager registrerer og anvender deres varemærke i Danmark. Styrelsen er
imidlertid uenig med klager i, at brevet fra Finanstilsynet kan tages til
indtægt for, at det ansøgte varemærke kan anvendes og registreres i Danmark af
klager.
Finanstilsynet henviser i brevet af den 19. februar 2009 til lov om
finansiel virksomhed § 7, stk. 5, der har følgende ordlyd:
Stk. 5. Pengeinstitutter har eneret til at
benytte henholdsvis betegnelsen »bank«, »sparekasse« eller »andelskasse« i
deres navn. Andre virksomheder, bortset fra banker, der er oprettet ved lov, må
ikke anvende navne eller betegnelser for deres virksomhed, som er egnet til at
fremkalde det indtryk, at de er pengeinstitutter. Et pengeinstitut må ikke
betegne sin virksomhed på en måde, der er egnet at fremkalde det indtryk, at
det er landets nationalbank.
Bestemmelsen indebærer, at en virksomhed i Danmark ikke må anvende
betegnelsen ”bank” i sit navn eller varemærke, når virksomheden udbyder
finansielle eller dermed beslægtede tjenesteydelser, medmindre virksomheden har
Finanstilsynets tilladelse til at drive pengeinstitutvirksomhed.
Lov om finansiel virksomhed indeholder endvidere i lovens § 32, jf. §§ 30
og 31 en mulighed for udenlandske kreditinstitutter til at anvende ordet ”bank”
i Danmark uden forudgående tilladelse fra Finanstilsynet. Således fastslås det
i lovens § 32, at en udenlandsk virksomhed kan benytte det samme navn, som
virksomheden benytter i hjemlandet.
Dog skal bemærkes, at udenlandske kreditinstitutter alene må udøve
kreditinstitutvirksomhed i Danmark, såfremt virksomheden lever op til kravene i
lovens §§ 30 eller 31.
For at en udenlandsk virksomhed kan være omfattet af bestemmelserne i §§ 30
og 31 i lov om finansiel virksomhed, skal Finanstilsynet underrettes om
virksomhedens påtænkte udøvelse af eksempelvis ”kreditinstitutvirksomhed” i
Danmark af tilsynsmyndigheden i virksomhedens hjemland. Der er således ikke
tale om en egentlig tilladelse udstedt af Finanstilsynet, men blot en
underretning om den påtænkte udøvelse af kreditinstitutvirksomhed.
Derudover skal understreges, at undtagelsen i § 32 vedrører brug af eget
navn, og således ikke vedrører en generel adgang til at anvende ordet
”bank” eller lignende betegnelser. En sådan adgang opnås alene ved tilladelse
til at drive pengeinstitutvirksomhed af Finanstilsynet.
Ovennævnte fremgår også af Finanstilsynets brev af den 19. februar 2009,
idet der i brevets fjerde afsnit er anført følgende:
“Please note that the above mentioned exception in the Financial Business Act section 32 solely concern the entitlement to use the name in Denmark. Section 32 does not entail any permission to operate a financial business in Denmark. If VIETINBANK and Device desire to operate a financial business in Denmark such undertaking will have to be licensed by the Financial Supervisory Authority.”
I nærværende sag har klager endnu ikke opnået Finanstilsynets tilladelse
til at drive ”pengeinstitutvirksomhed” i Danmark, ligesom forholdet ikke er
omfattet af bestemmelserne i § 32, allerede fordi VietinBank ikke er klagers
navn.
Derudover foreligger der heller ikke oplysninger om, at Finanstilsynet
skulle være underrettet om klagers påtænkte udøvelse af eksempelvis
”kreditinstitutvirksomhed” efter lovens §§ 30 eller 31. Undtagelsesbestemmelsen
i lovens § 32 er således også af denne grund ikke relevant, hvorfor det alene
er bestemmelsen i lovens § 7, stk. 5, der finder anvendelse.
Dette indebærer, at klager alene må anvende det ansøgte varemærke i
forbindelse med finansielle eller dermed beslægtede tjenesteydelser, såfremt
klager har opnået Finanstilsynets tilladelse til at drive
pengeinstitutvirksomhed.
Klagers varemærke omfatter netop finansielle eller dermed beslægtede
tjenesteydelser, nemlig tjenesteydelser i klasse 36, hvorfor varemærket klart
falder indenfor rækkevidden af § 7, stk. 5 i lov om finansiel virksomhed.
Styrelsen fastholder derfor afgørelsen af den 15. oktober 2009 og den under
behandlingen fremførte argumentation og vurdering.
Styrelsen skal således henstille til Ankenævnet, at den trufne afgørelse
stadfæstes...”
Med mail af 28. januar 2010 kommenterede klager
udtalelsen fra Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen og anførte følgende:
“…The following is our reply to the statement
Firstly, we confirm that Vietnam Bank For Industry and Trade (Vietinbank) is a credit institution in Vietnam and uses the name VIETINBANK to register as a trademark in Denmark is not contrary to the Danish Financial Business Act. This is also conceded by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority in the letter of February 19, 2009.
In our opinion, registration of “VIETINBANK” as a Trademark and use “VIETINBANK” for the activities in financial business in Denmark of the VIETINBANK are different work. In this case, the VIETINBANK only applies for registration of VIETINBANK as their Trademark in Denmark but not for operating in financial business in Denmark. Thus, the VIETINBANK does not violate the Danish Financial Business Act due to using the word “BANK” for operating in financial business in Denmark without a licence of the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.
Also, in section 7(5) of the Danish Financial Business Act mentioned that “Banks have exclusive right to use the words “bank”, “sparekasse” or “andelskasse” in their name. Other undertakings established by law, except for banks, may not use names or expressions for their activities that create the impression that they are a bank. A bank may not describe its activities in a way that may create the impression that it is Denmark’s central bank”. In this case, the VIETINBANK does not use their name for their activities that create the impression that they are a bank but they are a real bank that has a permission to operate a financial business in Vietnam. We also understand that the registration of “VIETTINBANK” in Denmark does not mean to be allowed for use the word “BANK” for operating in financial business in Denmark. We do hope that after obtaining the protection of the Trademark “VIETINBANK” in Denmark, the VIETINBANK will apply for a licence in financial business in Denmark as mentioned by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.
We do hope that with these arguments, The Board of Appeal for Patent and Trademarks will withdraw the refusal of the registration and accept to protect our client’s Trademark in Denmark…”
Udskriftens og fotokopiens rigtighed
bekræftes.
Ankenævnet for Patenter og
Varemærker den 23. marts 2010.