The General Court of the European Union (TGU) dismissed on Wednesday the appeal presented by the singer to request the nullity of jewels and other products of the Bulgarian brand Rozaliya.
Bulgarian Raphael Europe requested in May 2016 to the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO, for its acronym in English) the registration as a mark of the union of the denominative sign Rozaliya jewelry for enlightenmentto, among others, several jewelry, jewelry and leather goods. The brand was recorded on September 6 of that year.
In October 2021 ,. The expiration of brand rights can be declared if, during an uninterrupted period of five years, it has not been subject to effective use in the EU with respect to the products or services for which it was recorded and if there are no causes that justify the lack of use.
In December 2022, the Euipo declared the, except for the jewels, personal jewels and for personal ornament, adorn jewels, decorative items for personal use, necklaces and jewelry pieces, according to Servimedia.
In February 2023, Rosalía appealed to the EU Intellectual Property Office for not having declared this nullity with respect to these products. The EUIPO dismissed the appeal on December 15 of that year when considering that the evidence provided by the company holding the brand demonstrated its effective use with respect to the mentioned products.
The Euipo considered – and the parties accepted it – that the period to demonstrate the effective use was between October 8, 2016 and October 7, 2021. However, Rosalía appealed this resolution before the General Court of the European Union.
In his sentence issued on Wednesday, the TGU dismisses Rosalía’s appeal. First, because the singer reproaches the US to have considered that there was an effective use of the brand, when, according to her, the evidence provided by Raphael Europe did not prove it legally sufficiently.
Rosalía said that the EU Intellectual Property Office was wrong when examining the tests of the brand use, the invoices that demonstrated sales outside the European Union and the importance of use.
The General Court rules out that the US made errors when considering that the evidence provided showed that the brand had been used as an indicator of the commercial origin of the mentioned products.
Although he admits that, when determining the effective use of the brand, the EUIPO did not examine whether it was placed in the products or in its packaging, the General Court indicates that this error cannot take the nullity of the contested resolution because it lacks influence on the result.
The vast majority of invoices provided by Raphael Europe does not refer to sales to customers outside the EU, but established within community Europe. In addition, taking into account that invoices related to products for the United Kingdom are prior to December 31, 2020, it should be considered that they were included among sales within the European Union.
Therefore, the US was not wrong when considering that the test elements provided by Raphael Europe showed that the brand had been used as an indicator of the commercial origin of the products sold in the EU.
In addition, the EU General Court denies that the US was wrong to conclude that the evidence was enough to demonstrate that the brand had been present in the market effectively, constantly and stable as regards the products in question.
Secondly, Rosalía accused the US of not having sufficiently motivated its resolution and having been based on presumptions because it did not explain how the invoices related to sales outside the EU show that there had been exports of products in which the Rozaliya Jewelry for Enlightement brand had been placed necessary and automatically.
The General Court emphasizes that the US presented a duly justified motivation that demonstrated the reasons why the evidence provided accredited the effective use of the brand with respect to the products sold within the Union.
Therefore, the US was not based on mere presumptions, but took into account the evidence provided by the brand holder, including invoices and screenshots.
With regard to sales of products destined for export, the General Court reiterates that almost all the evidence provided demonstrates a brand use in the EU territory and accredits the effective use of the brand.
