{"Signatur": "VD_TC_007", "Spider": "VD_FindInfo", "Datum": "2021-01-01", "PDF": {"Datei": "VD_FindInfo/VD_TC_007_CB19-042714_nodate.pdf", "URL": "https://prestations.vd.ch/pub/101623/api/decision/download/b7a0fc4c-e009-4478-9b1b-c36cd99a3427", "Checksum": "e03312066dc51eb00383b8d8f6cd1bae"}, "Scrapedate": "2023-01-01", "Num": ["CB19.042714"], "Kopfzeile": [{"Sprachen": ["fr", "de", "it"], "Text": "Vaud Tribunal cantonal Cour civile CB19.042714"}], "Meta": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Waadt  Cour civile"}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Vaud Tribunal cantonal Cour civile"}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Vaud  Cour civile"}], "Abstract": [{"Sprachen": ["de", "fr", "it"], "Text": "Propriété intellectuelle"}], "ScrapyJob": "446973/39/2237", "Zeit UTC": "10.04.2026 03:21:50", "Checksum": "4ddb05807dc409aea937f4d83d400e83", "Chunktext": "Extrait de l'arrêt Vaud Tribunal cantonal Cour civile CB19.042714\nRegeste:\nPropriété intellectuelle\n\n 12 Due to Dr. [...]’s wording (…) the survey aimed at an investigation\nabout the « design » (« Gestaltung ») ; this wording therefore was\nused throughout the German questionnaire. In the French and the\nItalian questionnaires, by contrast, she referred to the « shape »\n(« forme » / « forma »). Whereas « design » would have been the\nbetter wording for the IfD approach chosen with the coloured design,\nthis is not in line with the subject of the resent legal dispute, which is\nabout the shpae of the chocolate bar in question. If the topic had\nbeen the shape / form, then no colouring should have been used and\ncareful translations should have been done with the same wording in\nall three languages in order to have the same set-up everywhere.\nNevertheless, the results shown separately for the three language\nregions in the IfD report indicate that the different wording in the\nthree languages did not lead to significantly differing results here.\n\n13 It is the same with the different but well recognisable perspective\n/ angle : to my mind, this did not increase the results as the bar\nlooked a bit shorter in the image than in reality.\n\n14 Further, it is unclear why Dr. [...] chose a size of presentation of\nthe bar that appears to be about 20% bigger than in reality and not\nin the same proportions as the original. This is against the IPI\nGuidelines but it is open to question whether this has caused higher\nresults.\n\n15 (…) The IfD image used does not comply with the IPI Guidelines for\ndifferent reasons. It is unclear to what extent this might have\nincreased the results for the awareness and distinctiveness of the\n« [...] » shape.\n- 18 -\n\n(…)\n\n19 Nonetheless, I think that the inclusion of the active answer option\n« seems familiar » in the question wording of the interviewers is not\na severe shortcoming here but rather reflects the actual situation as\nthe abstract sign actually cannot « be known » but can de facto only\n« seem familiar ». The share of 23% for « this design / shape looks\nfamiliar in this context » was, therefore, correctly included in the\ndegree of awareness of 90% (…).\n\n20 Unlike the question on distinctiveness, it is not at all common\npractice to rotate the answer options of the wawreness question (…)\nand, to my knowledge, has never been required by any court or\noffice so far. This is due to the fact that awareness questions are\nusually rather short, so that normally the order of the answer options\ncannot have any influence, as well as due to the fact that it would be\nrather strage and unusual for the respondents if they were firstly\nasked whether they do not know the sign in question or,\nsubsequently, whether they know it.\n\n21 (…) Even if the IfD question on the awareness differs from the\nquestion proposed in the IPI Guidelines, there seems to be no reason\nto assume that the degree of awareness would have been\nsignificantly inflated by the additional, actively offered answer\noption « seems familiar » : Someone included here although in fact\nwithout knowledge of the sign, would reveal this with all probability\nin the core question on distinctiveness (…).\n\n(…)\n\n25 Firstly, the question (ndr : question G2 : En lien avec les barres de\nchocolat, j’attribue cette forme uniquement à une entreprise/marque\nbien précise – à différentes entreprises/marques – à aucune\nentreprise/marque en particulier – je n’ai pas d’avis à ce sujet) was\nalso addressed to those 2% who did not provide an answer to the\nquestion on awareness (question G1 ; ndr : Avez-vous déjà vu cette\nforme en lien avec des barres de chocolat, ou vous est-elle familière\nou vous est-elle au contraire totalement inconnue en lien avec des\nbarres de chocolat ? Oui, j’ai déjà vu cette forme – elle m’est\nfamilière – elle m’est totalement inconnue – ne sais pas/pas\nd’indication). (…) These respondents could only guess in question 2,\nunless they selected the answer « I have no opinion on that ». (…)\n\n26 Secondly, instead of the easily comprehensible and precise wording\n« indication of … » (« Hinweis auf … » / « renvoie-t-elle à … » / un\nrinvio a … ») of the IPI Guidelines (…), the wording « assign to »\n(« ordne zu » / « j’attribue » / « attribuisco ») was chose, ehich\nseems to be very restrictive. (…) Yet, this would not have increased\nthe results for distinctiveness but might have possibly had the\nopposite effect – to what extent remains unclear.\n\n27 Thirdly, the use of the term « brand » (« Marke » / « marque » /\n« marca ») already in the question on distinctiveness is not in line\nwith the IPI Guidelines (…) and other standards (…). The reason for\nnot having « brand » mentioned in the distinctiveness question is\nthat the status of being a trademark / brand is legally only taken\n- 19 -\n\n"}