Eerste aanleg - enkelvoudig van Rechtbank Amsterdam, 25 de Marzo de 2009 (2024)

vonnis

_____________________________________________________________________ __

RECHTBANK AMSTERDAM

Sector civiel recht, enkelvoudige kamer

zaaknummer / rolnummer 381148 / HA ZA 07.2745

Vonnis van 25 maart 2009

in de zaak van:

de besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid

ADVIESPRAKTIJK AMSTERDAM ZUID OOST B.V.,

gevestigd te Amsterdam,

eiseres,

advocaat mr. N.W. Mulder,

tegen:

de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende vennootschap naar Zwitsers recht

BOARDS AND MORE HOLDING AG.,

gevestigd te Montreux, Zwitserland,

gedaagde,

advocaat mr. W.E. Pors.

Partijen worden hierna Adviespraktijk en Boards and More genoemd.

1. De procedure

   Het verloop van de procedure blijkt uit:

   -de dagvaarding van 28 augustus 2007, ;

   -de akte overlegging producties van Adviespraktijk;

   -het exploot van betekening van 3 maart 2008;

   -de conclusie van antwoord, met bewijsstukken;

   -het vonnis van deze rechtbank van 13 augustus 2008, waarbij een comparitie van partijen is gelast;

   -het proces-verbaal van de op 12 januari 2009 gehouden comparitie van partijen, met de daarin genoemde stukken.

   Vervolgens is vonnis bepaald op heden.

2. De feiten

   De rechtbank gaat uit van de volgende als vaststaand te beschouwen feiten:

   2.1Adviespraktijk is eigenaar van het hierna afgebeelde beeldmerk dat sinds 23 mei 1977 is geregistreerd bij het Benelux-Bureau voor de Intellectuele Eigendom. In 1993 is een geschil ontstaan tussen partijen over het gebruik van een beeldmerk door (een rechtsvoorganger van) Boards and More dat lijkt op dat van Adviespraktijk. Bij vonnis van 25 november 1998 heeft de rechtbank Almelo het gebruik van het gelijkende beeldmerk door Boards and More verboden. Naar aanleiding van deze kwestie hebben partijen in maart 2001 een vaststellingsovereenkomst gesloten.

   Beeldmerk van de AdviespraktijkBeeldmerk van Boards and More

   2.2Vanaf mei 2001 zijn partijen in onderhandeling geweest over een licentieovereenkomst waarbij het Boards and More zou zijn toegestaan gebruik te maken van haar beeldmerk voor sportswear and similar products not made of rubber including but not limited to footwear in de Benelux en Ierland. De onderhandelingen hebben geleid tot een conceptovereenkomst. Bij e-mail van 20 juni 2002 is namens Boards and More aan Adviespraktijk medegedeeld dat bij nader inzien van een overeenkomst werd afgezien. Als een van de redenen werd de door Adviespraktijk veroorzaakte vertraging in de afhandelingen genoemd.

   2.3Bij e-mail van 20 november 2003 heeft Boards and More laten weten (opnieuw) geïnteresseerd te zijn in een licentieovereenkomst met Adviespraktijk. Bij een daaropvolgende bespreking tussen partijen in december 2003 is de zaak besproken. Nadien is schriftelijk verder onderhandeld.

   2.4Op 16 november 2004 was er opnieuw een bijeenkomst tussen partijen waarbij Boards and More werd vertegenwoordigd door [A], een van de drie eigenaars van Boards and More and in charge for the licence and not hardgoods business at Boards and More .

   2.5Op 31 maart 2005 heeft Adviespraktijk een aangepaste conceptovereenkomst (hierna: conceptovereenkomst maart 2005) naar Boards and More gezonden, met een Annex betreffende de vestiging van een pandrecht. Namens Boards and More is hierop bij e-mail van 11 april 2005 als volgt gereageerd.

   Thank you for handing over the proposal for the transfer of the Kleim- Trademarks. We checked both, the Sales Contract as well as the Deed of Pledge. Attached you will find our comments:

   [...]

2. We like to have an additional cl. 1.5. with a wording as follows: ''The parties further agree that all rights attached to the trademarks are transferred to Boards&More with effect as of (April 1 st??) 2005. This transfer includes any documentation, description of or relating to the trademark." I think this should be no problem.

3. Could you please hand over an estimate of cost before the parties will sign the contract? Cl. 2.5. is very general and in the end forces Boards&More to fully reimburse for all costs which can be associated with the transfer of the trademarks. As we have to calculate our costs, that means also the additional charges, it would be very helpful to receive an estimate of cost right in time, but in any case before placing the signature. As much as I know it was agreed that Boards&More is willing to take over the necessary cost of the transfer and we will keep our promise. But on the other hand, and I am sure you will understand, we are forced by the shareholder to reduce the cost to what is really necessary. This is the reason for our request regarding the said calculation upfront.

4. Cl. III regarding the validity of the trademarks is very short and in the end contains no regulation regarding the validity. We like to extend the clause as follows:

   a.Advies. represents and warrants that it has full, unchallenged legal and

   beneficial title to the trademarks in the Territories (Benelux and Ireland)

   b.Advies. represents and warrants that all intellectual Property Rights related to the Trademarks do not violate or infringe upon any third party rights

   c.Advies. undertakes to idemnify and hold Boards&More harmless from and against any claims or liabilities arising from the Trademarks or the use of the Trademarks violating or infringing any third parties existing at the date of this agreement

   Please check, I think you should also have no problems with this extension, because we do not ask for excessive warranty but for necessary requirements at a given time which is the time of signing the agreement. These conditions should be fulfilled on the side of seller.

5. For our opinion the period of time fixed in cl. 5.1. and 5.2. is too long. The ordinary term for selling stock in contracts like these is about 6 - 9 months. We suggest the date of 31.12.2005. This should be sufficient.

6. I think you will understand that we are not willing to sign cl. 5.4. of the contract. As soon as our company as fully complied with its obligations and we are the full and legal owner of the trademarks, we have to be free regarding the choice of a potential lawyer. This c1ause on hand is not related to the content of the sales contract of trademarks. First of all we do a lot of legal matters in house, on the other hand we have long existing relations to lawyers all over Europe. This is no mistrust doubt concerning the quality of your work, but want to be free while authorizing a lawyer. Probably we will come back to you and use your services and knowledge, but we do not want to be forced by a trademark transfer contract.

7. Please let me know why you think the "Deed of Pledge" is necessary?? We did a lot of trademark transfers during the last years (both ways), but we never had the necessity for that kind of instrument. All regulations can be settled in the Sales Contract. It only takes money and time and it will not serve a purpose additional to the ones we can fix in the Sales Contract. Please let us know your explanation as well as the cost. [...]

   2.6Bij e-mail van 16 juni 2005 heeft de raadsman van Adviespraktijk als volgt op voorgaande e-mail gereageerd.

   [...]

2. The assignment will take place after Adviespraktijk has received the first payment (see article 1.3.). What kind of documentation, description are you referring at?

3. [A] estimated the costs in one of his earlier mails at approximately

   € 20.000,00. I think this is a good estimate.

4. I think Mr. [B] will not agree to this c1ause. Please note, however, that as far as I know no one other than Mistral other has ever challenged the validity of the Kleim logo. The same holds true for infringements of third party intellectual property rights.

5. I think Mr. [B] could agree to this.

6. I understand your point. However, Mr. [B] would like to keep an eye on matters until B&M has fulfilled all its obligations. I trust you understand this.

7. The Deed of Pledge is necessary. I presume that Mr. [B] is in agreement with the clause you suggest to add.

   2.7Bij e-mail van 20 juni 2005 is namens Boards and More het volgende aan Adviespraktijk medegedeeld.

   [...] today I had the possibility to discuss the trademark-transfer matter together with [A]. Regarding your mail below we came across that most probably both parties will be able to finalize and sign the settlement agreement as soon as the lreland transfer matter is solved. We are willing to agree with the Deed of Pledge in case Mr. [B] will agree with the c1auses we suggested, but...