Hofstede Insights Oy vs Geert Hofstede BV

This case concerned a dispute between Hofstede Insights Oy and Geert Hofstede BV over the registration of an EU trade mark, involving issues of non-registered marks and national law evidence.

TLDR:

• Hofstede Insights Oy sought annulment of an EUIPO decision.
• The dispute involved the registration of the trade mark 'hofstede insights'.
• The General Court dismissed the action, upholding the EUIPO decision.

The applicant, Hofstede Insights Oy, sought the annulment of a decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) dated 28 April 2023. The contested decision pertained to the registration of the trade mark 'hofstede insights' applied for by Geert Hofstede BV on 16 November 2020.

The trade mark application covered goods and services in Classes 35 and 41 of the Nice Agreement, specifically 'Business research and advisory services' and 'Coaching in economic and management matters'. Hofstede Insights Oy, through its predecessor Itim International Oy, opposed the registration based on earlier Finnish non-registered marks, trade names, auxiliary trade names, and domain names.

The Opposition Division of EUIPO rejected the opposition on 14 September 2022. Hofstede Insights Oy appealed this decision, but the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that the applicant failed to substantiate any concrete arguments against the Opposition Division's reasoning.

The Board of Appeal found that the evidence submitted by the applicant was insufficient to prove the use of the earlier Finnish non-registered mark in the course of trade of more than local significance in Finland. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide evidence of the content of national law concerning the scope of protection of the other earlier rights invoked.

The General Court upheld the Board of Appeal's decision, stating that the applicant's single plea in law was ineffective as it was directed against grounds included for the sake of completeness. The court emphasized that even if a ground is erroneous, it cannot justify the annulment of the measure if other sufficient grounds exist.

The court dismissed the action and ordered Hofstede Insights Oy to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Geert Hofstede BV. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) was ordered to bear its own costs.

Legal representatives: L. van der Veer for Geert Hofstede BV

Judicial Panel: F. Schalin (President), I. Nõmm, D. Kukovec (Rapporteur)

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EGC 123