Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62002CJ0136

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2004.
Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional torch shapes - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character.
Case C-136/02 P.

European Court Reports 2004 I-09165

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2004:592

Arrêt de la Cour

Case C-136/02 P

Mag Instrument Inc.

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Three-dimensional torch shapes – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character)

Summary of the Judgment

1.        Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment – Shape in question being a ‘variant’ of a common shape of the type of products concerned – Not sufficient to establish the distinctiveness of the trade mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

2.        Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Examination of the sign by the competent authority – Taking into consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the actual perception of the sign by consumers and to the exclusion of the perception arising from the use of the sign

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3))

3.        Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product – High-quality design – Not sufficient to establish the distinctiveness of the trade mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

1.        The criteria for assessing the distinctive character, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, of three-dimensional marks consisting of the shape of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark. None the less, for the purpose of applying those criteria, the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same in the case of a three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of the product itself as it is in the case of a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent from the appearance of the products it denotes. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark

In those circumstances, the more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character. Only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin, is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of that provision.

Therefore, where a three-dimensional mark is constituted by the shape of the product for which registration is sought, the mere fact that that shape is a ‘variant’ of a common shape of that type of product is not sufficient to establish that the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character. It must always be determined whether such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention.

(see paras 30-32)

2.        In order to assess whether or not a mark is devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) or, where a challenge is brought, the Court of First Instance, must have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances.

In that regard, even if that assessment must be carried out in relation to the presumed expectations of an average consumer of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the possibility remains that evidence based on the actual perception of the mark by consumers may, in certain cases, provide guidance to the Office or, where a challenge is brought, the Court of First Instance.

However, in order to contribute to the assessment of the distinctiveness of a mark, that evidence must show that consumers did not need to become accustomed to the mark through the use made of it, but that it immediately enabled them to distinguish the goods or services bearing the mark from the goods or services of competing undertakings. Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 would be redundant if a mark fell to be registered in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) by reason of its having become distinctive in consequence of the use made of it.

(see paras 48-50)

3.        The fact that goods benefit from a high quality of design does not necessarily mean that a mark consisting of the three-dimensional shape of those goods enables ab initio those goods to be distinguished from those of other undertakings for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

(see para. 68)




JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
7 October 2004(1)


(Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Three-dimensional torch shapes – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character)

In Case C-136/02 P,APPEAL under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice,lodged at the Court on 8 April 2002,

Mag Instrument Inc., established in Ontario, California (United States of America), represented initially by A. Nette, G. Rahn, W. von der Osten-Sacken and H. Stratmann, and subsequently by W. von der Osten-Sacken, U. Hocke and A. Spranger, Rechtsanwälte,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by D. Schennen, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,



THE COURT (Second Chamber),,



composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.‑P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 February 2004,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 March 2004,

gives the following



Judgment



1
By its appeal, Mag Instrument Inc. requests the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2002 in Case T-88/00 Mag Instrument v OHIM (Torch shapes) [2002] ECR II-467 (‘the contested judgment’), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed its application for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (‘the Office’) of 14 February 2000 (Cases R 237/1999-2 to R 41/1999-2), refusing registration of five three-dimensional marks consisting of torch shapes (‘the disputed decision’).


Legal framework

2
Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), headed ‘Absolute grounds for refusal’, states:

‘1.     The following shall not be registered:

(b)
trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;

3.       Paragraph 1(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply if the trade mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested in consequence of the use which has been made of it.’


Background

3
On 29 March 1996, the appellant filed five applications for three-dimensional Community trade marks under Regulation No 40/94 at the Office.

4
The three-dimensional marks in respect of which registration was sought are five shapes of torches, reproduced below, which are marketed by the appellant.

Image non trouvée Image non trouvée

‘3 C-Cell Mag-Lite’                                            ‘3 D-Cell Mag-Lite’

Image non trouvée Image non trouvée

‘Mag Charger’                                                       ‘Mini Maglite’

iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAOYAAAB1CAYAAABamJ1WAAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAAAlwSFlz AAAOxAAADsQBlSsOGwAAABl0RVh0U29mdHdhcmUATWljcm9zb2Z0IE9mZmljZX/tNXEAAFVt SURBVHhe7Z3Xs13Hdeb3zTnfi0QAJECCFEmZVLA5osZKVEmyZVfZVfajx1P+W/SH+NXzMK6p mQe5xipbKitSIzGLQQgk8s05p/l+q/u7aB0BuAcgBYPkPrdOnXP32bt37+7+Vl6r2/f29var +lWPQD0C1e7ubrW/v191dHRUwkW1s7NTtbW1Va2trfE/v7e3t991pFpaWqKNO13L74e9vve9 77Xc/S6HtVD/Xo/AJ2gEAKEByWMBQoMMQPl/g698dB8DvD7XbQHs8tpmhqwGZjOjVJ/zqR6B ZricB6jx3Hu5thzkGpif6iVXP/ztRgAOB6eE+/G98X/Axm+84LK8fC6c0WKvry3/b3bEa2A2 O1L1eZ+qEQCYAMuv8n++A85SpC0BbFHW17odrmv2VQOz2ZGqz/vUjAAAsk5oTng7zlhyTa6B MxqwjYNVgryZgayB2cwo1ed8akbAOqG52510RnNNBuZO536YQauB+WFGr772EzcCBmLp7rC+ CRe1vgl3LLko1/H/ncRVc1Rfc9jA1cA8bITq3z+VI1D6Kxt1RoPQA9MI0NtZYhuvOWxQa2Ae NkL17/UI/CeMQA3M/4RBr2/5yR4BG4wQdx015M9alP1kz339dA/xCBh8ttBa97yXYIOaYz7E E1x37eM9Avfit2x80hqYH++5r3v/EI2AfZWl79PW2I+hH5MIit8f3VtBEs1HSzxEc1R35RM6 AvZf3o4bWlQFhP7O572CkqH7g3DMe5Gl5Z6V74dUmb2DqUwPxv+8b3Xxw4gGn9B1Uj/WAxyB kvvdDZi3C0rg/HtZvx8ZMMvObG9vV1tbW9Xm5mYOU2L0Elu0kxZ2v7W1Xm3rnJ29W0HBnIOy 3NOtPDhRm97+kciP87WHgf5eHv4Bzml9q0/ACDQGEZgTYn097PXA/ZhlpMTa2lo1NzdX3bhx o5qZmRMwt4JKIKpub28Ge+/q6oln2Nxcz4mpLVVfX1/V3d2hcwXfHBzc2ipw9vTo/GvxyXEA 2tPTrWO8u0JEsAUMwHd2dh6IEHcbqBq8hy2j+vfDRqBkEIcxi8Paut3vH5pjssjX1lar9977 bQByamoq/m9pacu6I5wysXHeW1vbAlQCWfBRAW51dVn/A7Q2AbRL31No0/LyktrazJnjbQFg QM613d3d0Q5AbWtrF1A7q4GBwbjewC2BWlKsOw1kDdj7WUKfvmvuFD/7UY7EfQOTziGOAsa3 3nq7On/+vWphYSGOweHgYMmok0RYzoflr6+vB6fjHF6AAQDt7KyG+AsndGQ/v7e2kt+2Iw7b EqJxSwv5cSmzvLMTLpkAzot24KAA15/cq6OjPQDb398f5/Di/u4n57qExO0GtwbsR7nk6raa GYH7AqYpxuzsbPXrX79Svf76G7rXXix8gACAFhcXqzaCfrXoW4o8NK5loa+urgZQ+Q4Y+SRw mLdld4CToifSNdvbGwfA5OH4f2UlicoJ5I70x5KbCAfiNWAcHOw/KPlAWwCxv3+wGhoaDHDD jYeGhuLTYrFLQhxW58UEppkBr8+pR6CZEbgvYNLwxsZG9dvf/lbc8k2BaStES0CVALQNq6ta AZm44LZAsKlj+zlEyVzLSjNc1Lol382huEeAAm4L+gCx/gdUvmYfndSo1OfO7k7VItG2RWCO /DhhtKulIwgFIIUIcH/uMTMzG6C0SZt79fYOBIcdGhoIkPb29sa7o6MzroXz8qydyqFVfnvV zvX83aHIUs1tm1mG9TmNI3DfwFxZWalu3pwM8RUOmRZtdxIjMdIIVJ0CQ4vAuaoFvo0LJJdr cMpMAFgvgFaKr+7krq7dyMDrF8B31O662uI4Yi+A7NV7S+dsZuC2Coy94pRtvBG3BbYlSkRk Tr2h69bzfVs4V1y5FX0X7q03AOZVckt0WB1RH1ur0dERcdqB6kj3frXZ3lu1d/dXgwO3AGy9 1mC/mw+rBm0NyDuNwD0D05wBjjU1NR2cE3CW+lsAT8fnxZk2BaRWyjRgnc2lGiy2ui3OB2jl K4xFgFafg3BOgWtYgJzJXLlb5y8IVGNLS9WgflvNXHBZn8PLy9WawMY9+9X21bGx+A537RUo edP2iogJoB0UJ10TUdmPfDvEZnFD3QdiMTg4KI69LZF5pdrWPW9O3kyWYJ0DQJNRqSXEYAgT BKq3tz84rokVxxHLIVqlWHwnEbkGbA3Yewam9SmAiQuExTeuhd+ixbojEOzpOK8VLWwWcmsW U1mYgLj0+Vjf9DSU/yM+op8CoD1qeyKW6j0md8ysAD4j9CAeX9F9uqgHqu9hUNK5kwMD1Rog 0zk9AFkcHY6NODyo/owKZHDbNYFpBWCpX5vouLqmW88D99zQNYjQa/oc1nNQcgkiA5ffAdhw 42X5rxQYsb6xWU1PT0tSkDGqvVPnqE9dyXKcRN++amRkRJ+d0cfw0+pzdHT0wABlyeFuLh9U BV63ky7qpfzJGoH7AmYAT4t7SdwKoHUgxmZRdVrcCkDaPWJjDhzRoCyzwC3y2RBUxhtyH7js tgCxrPus5ntAAASbqkWA2khyZ9ITtXAHAaL+XxMX53ibwDEmIE3BEfXbnD7bdLxPXHIXDi5A dus9LhF2SvfpUJv9AuNNCAP30TWLWJEF2pGZmegDYKdPm+KAO1h0Ea317lyTUYv76A8/7bLG AgmbmtpIFHBM69I9PX1hkMLNMzg4dJAZPzo6pv8TtwXAABUg2tJsKaPUaRvH7pO1RD+dT3Nf wAR0cD/AiUFlcHi4atNi3tRChFMCgFK3YuEkV0cynzZWurbrxZWuuRbOFKF5unZZBADO6eJH gUW9I0QqlxjEArynayAWKahB99Jv83BWcactWYHh8p0YqbTo11nsOr9dv9/UfcYwLOlaerjA fUVIerk3hqvMVXv1DIjN9GVHzw/qlsWdO9QuQO5An9a1XXB4CIW+02fegBRCASHgHi2t89Xl y6nSN0Ym+owft68PsBJssR/HAXRf30A1PDwUIIbTJndTtwDbEWNpN9HdlnAtHn+8AH5fwOQR WeSAIF5awFe08NYx+GjBb2oh2rDTKK5yOiANbqjFCydl0ZgjeCHze5lUyjkGJtftZJdHfM96 pwGZFnkqPehq2ObMO7rfcubeG3oG7sFvCwDZllU9Tzs6sp5lW4Qn+izOta42uxHX9f8xvTcE 8gG4or6PZMIDSOeyMQliEQqrXtvq47B+W1E72zrelXXiPR1fFoGDi/MiqIKX/btIDBifeiQS 9wj8XEd/u7t7gtMOyPAEMAdEIABy6cuF0yZ/8p2txtyLcbVB7k7W5TTR9etBjcB9ARMwzc/P B6ig4ABtBRFWHAjXiPeAaBS7Gqn2AWfLAPL5LC6AZZ2Kwbjd4io5aPndgPQgGqS3E//oQ+hs WHFz8V7ui2iKZdf3RQqYhUPnvuwIJGJhVYfGoFPnDQjIWJ23AXuOakIUXtL4YGQK0HGt2jkm gtau55uVjsl49Yqbt+D7FXfszgEQAAX9liu30XVXV6oujfkO1mW928Vd4aZtbUmMt7hLBFUS hTsPOG5vb192EyXuavE4BVakgsZlRkTj4rNaUhagamaBlvPbzPn1ObdG4L6AiVh29erVACCc ziDlf0DqjG3X2XT4nTlbOQF2S1gHtZibuEJ3tOcgBAOHcyECzVB3EwMWI237f3PrRrC6zwHu bCl2ZBDgRXQGBDPipC1641yJcAYAo09EWFGsxLEBPaK2wDgAaOFsGrt9XD86d0IGo0VCC3XO LEEWOr6WDTy0hVGrR0CfFbh3EF+z9bgPqURtbWylseEVQRMhPksCaE9BHd0iHkgw7V361PUj I4MJzBqHEIHD6jwkK3KKP8bg5sirkhD6u8tj+H583skdZAmnmeCMGpC/PwL3BEwv4mvXrlZX rlwJjonfz7pmOz7MEL1koc0LDADhH0S/2gJMeSG5K97IJRZW3lnJE08bNmwAUIPWoGxGb3K7 tBl9yffhf4twFn355BwbXtzHUrzmWDxbdrlgyQ0w6/l4Tn+aOLVhpRY37UUUF8AuoXPC4fQ+ pXZ2xC0XBJYejd2u2kR3j+fX7xii5gQWjE1rGptpjFMAXQANcVhjAleO9vSJmLzfIpF5dbta Q08Wh13Sdd1qdxHCJPCHEQriqbnbUmzxiOwDWI4hXClMEQsyIvJAAJXn4LtdPYREWuJvXE7l fFgSqUF3fyNwT8DkFiyc8+cvhTGDSTMoAU74/uBKOP/hINlIhK6FkQV/4WwsnluZ0WWGCAvc Pj/uhWHJOhJtlbpps49LP0rjk+9RUnrrw26TZ7Q4zfmOFPqde6K36QAcNIDU8MlYhAiI1Vpj goFpN+uSEC/43MU8Du0CJ6AE8KUksKJzAN8xRGON4Vp282wIQOsKh8QSfkxtdCEyC3SI3+ix GMzg0HDZTSKddPyIjm9ovlbVxjCqhwC6o2SDVoVGbW6muGVeXeKuN28qskkRTfv76dmSgQlf rJIGlI7X1iYw96SAEsCcoqMANeEe2SiHLzvXWXVRqnL8nOXfjNTT7Fx/ks67Z2BOTk5WFy6c jwXkoHT0rj6BEaq9Kt8g1lBzzLC4wvl0zrIWF64Ob7xi0LCAaQtOZZcCg3ynwAP7ATmXfpT6 5Z38pCYU1l2tUx3okA2cvOTKjfpr4wIofY92BXGORb/SIh1cNeuEcE3rb+aUpV7eod83RJyu wO0y4YNdhS8VPVgLH9PUUb0ZU7g3EVLoxiHgAkSdO6Kvw1yja1cE1hX5VPeyi4tsH6y7PINd YKTrkSW0Kr0WI19EWSGa725XfStLVUev3DvHjlZHxsfDFzsmP/aZM2ers2fPSDQejucmQ8gS 0O3110TY/Lx3sz98kgDX7LM0DcwAmCb8woWL1aVLlw6sqQEqIm/w0UEts8W17IC50ybiVXYf sLDsHim5k3UT65U+z4YEA4zFyWIuLbWm1hZNS+CaapsDl66Z21H08phFaoPNgDOoDSqOp0yZ xC19f/7nXP7nXXJGW4XLcy1FmONs6zmJSopFDCfM7cMZ1/W+SkgjXFcggvht6T0FmBCV1ekP 9O7BH6rPWYmuiMOdBIiEz7WqpuSfXZMENCfRd25uVmDcCIs79yHZgGfqElc8ic7a019tjwxX Q7qW/jAPAJp1QVLDyDAxxd1CXG+IzYz3wEDy4SZxuKPq75DVvFMJCpXWTCZUBijz4ue+E2hL f3izC73Z82xj8L39v9dUs+182POaBiY3IsXr8uUrAQiLlWHw0f/BKRDv4DwNSoh1O9rgOwMP d4QSe9GX4DRXY1DC0ptjW5lkruMaG4XKwPkIdiAUL7sezE0NEq7lxWJzQHui7mnR2Djk62y9 LKl5TBgLEl9tBpsngfsbpBxrJBoeBwPT9+TcUAWyT9YSBeNjInA3C2dwUHR79ecKfcrPjyCK 2Nyq576kz+MYhJaWBVD5bDfWq3fkhukUGBcFyhtER2kenfVjzt8rvfb40aPVkAB95Nix4JCj +k4fHSOdbArbYQRcWVxR1JSIQttIHCO4YnRUfu7suqE/w53SicV1u6Xjdij+GBGYsWB+LBqX Bicb/cp5sOW/dKkxjh8FaEubg8e9GXvGhwVjeX1TwGSQEGkuXLhQTU7eiOwLUxR8a1j50JEY rBAB4ZyFaNiow/Gb/ZdewCxWjAwGD21Z5LOu6vYNQM7lHCYHPceGIu7Hoil9qZwHZQ+qrfcA 7g70zzwaFs05j74AMO9fUeqZiHQd6J0YfYqRtOHIh2z8aAyfMyFxX0NMzNKIxXmLvl4UdlNA KHy+M3S4nznpLtxUou+6PsugA/TfZcIhxeUGFUI4tbYh/+x6dX15odoStwwXUAQy9MVY2pg1 qGPjEntHJiZi3NApEcUdxLEGQVbfe7AoYxDD77vteZuM8WOtrEj8dWBFjBlJ9Prr6EhumpTV AzjJm+0NHy3/T0yMxX357r4F987z3kisvOasGpnzOvrsThbkEhA+x20Z+I0E4KME4e3aOhSY Fh0vXrxUvfLKKyGuELBNR+EavSxQgWAa90EGJIsHIFuEc16lAcnEm7KVg0gHI1g8669MiCfC k0HbFmGt/1iXMccx5bUV1/fjugiWV9/H1L81LSqC3cOJn0fH92ERGjBcxzsmS+ceQYQWEUFk LIlQOfHWHQ1YExq7jvzpaywlwLF4Hp7bEoPBbb3dVm+LfXwyVvTXyQC+H8cs3awS4CBVcWd6 p1qfl2V2RAa5Rx7J6XHJKm4LLLHPQ+rDKYFgHmsuMcPirDcF1tUsfhJsgai8pPkaU79x/SBa A1bua0ISriH9znNMQcixUGfCa2DamJjsB8ka/MEH74c47HIyAJfEgf5+StFQwUIBH5HRlDb7 AdDO7TUxaxSRmeYHzf3uB8SHApOHmBFVfeONNyPNy3pUiH0a/D793oK1UAs1Uqsw2+t/KJy5 IpNgMDE5paHDE2THNyA2x2NyOLdRtHTupzklfXLxLwYBMdWcxAQgOAxinfpIjA3WYV58H9Si W1W/iJ11nqc5tzky4xAUWOcv6NmIIML/aHGV52o0cpjjWo/kfmUWjSUCL5bgXDkSqRHY9MeL rdR5LR67n+VYlRzFizGITZ+CJ7qUEdM5HKIj1/DcyfqaYnN5beuZ3xfx7cLlA/cjugniST+Z eyQk9ZeY4RsEaeR23HfaYa4QqRdRR/Re1TVdWd2wVBHzkEHGWIUeHtKXMogW0HtjhCICqq9P qXby09oGQAgj9JJACYhTAjIW454AcGdnMijSLmPPZ8n9bqci3Am4t7NF3A/omrnmrsBk8KHg r776avXaa6+IQ25Xw+KWXlwkLe/qQXc1mSNQT8TYPMDWAdY0qVBs2WqrraxHORmacxwsYI5h 3cLAYKBZiGGFzH5TL5zSCMPDlhFD1hO4jvvBLYZw2KuvM1kfC+oKhc/GmRTDqljXrMeWIriN RrEKsp5pakw/rDObOxlsXGeRquyjF6+tvwTLd4gjDQgoayJyljYssfh/SxPm7CyWkvuYIJV6 ve/r6CAHEXCOwyodwUX/7TNOcJCLTMcW9HkdoiaiRxghLzJ4LKLyf+jGtgjrf/rF2KNXcm6A gOAQAYV5tRWea3k+0ge5XzeVKwjkgEjhZiL5XX99umZlivpQsiPAlbFKr5HCJxFemU7cD8MT FuFUzK03QhYBs32yPCcSn6UQPiP4RO6hNl3j8ePTQLQk1gygPqpz7ghMi3EEElCpgEEb0IJl sAKMGCr0GRxUAxW1fDK145gfppsJ0YBGJode20yWFuAefkn8dlgYmYR8TWmFZSLhvrRno4DT prxQPakWNx0cwCd9sD4auiGERBegI26JE7v+0LrOJUUsFlkWw2wIsn5CWxYlvehZRGSdjGqx zgPqEMNu+QStEzeKlabIFuNoN4IzxIlJmoMb29NrY5kJF89r8ffAOptFWHM7u5kI/uAYixLO RW6pLb6MF89vXdy6pUVBCPLBC38s0hDARA1pGCdbuK2WWAT34mYsXV+p5JImuDY0sTYAMdFS XdnivqE+Ey0FV14QIWlFzcEXDjgZi37NGfOpnFgMjxvK6lnfSIXf5hcXqvapBGDOTRw86dGQ HO4LcPekd3e3JZ9sazficn81rPsmMKd6Uea0fkbPQSNR/IMDkxsAivPnz0uEvRnU6giDAogY GD0Ui8fmfzpurpLM4gKkzjnK4hDFJUeSZGZc0J3yf7XiViEAXOdu6L3G5GfOZVHNwLQ4ykIq OYTvY5HWnNTU0ByPPsOttxDTICT4+/Q8NoWba5k7LSMKZzHVIqIBYVGe/0NE1SeSVgQawL0y N+F3+sGb9m2M4Zm8IJlU64nU10UsjJcWZRhaMgBKPdSEwwsEYAEy69N8hqU8SycstnGN97As qdb1UU1425BkYsi1peHpYJFhYCPSCTDja2Zu9ay8eN5IzeP3LO5z3MTH+r2JiMfDIZghEosg IYUQIHEc3Vbrbh0gkiSg9YMLjsinca1DQItuvybgjOm8ZVmJO+TaIZCCtQRgIfQxl+pHxCLj WtN3fLrMF75bdFqqOYaapdpR1bSCKwiiOCrLdZfAK1ASFdUnv+xT556oHpOPdkyGsEGtYwic iX5JlHhuS1EfFqB3FWURc6gTGwtLD0y0CIsaqjVAyhdiJgsyL1JbGt3BSEbWAwIIolQ4E6DO 6Ni6jg3rM0RODeKM3nPoPzlLw6Jsqi3bdaBrsnBsWDJltthsi6qBbF2iVfcah2rCrdF51P9y UdKH4DboWPo+oXOX9WybhK3pfuaUZfsHnFXXQZEdV1vqJyYMACv6jNgMYcq+ztLix9iQx2qi YmMTz2bix6eLhVlU9wIwGK2Hcp5rFg1oITGOPAeAxIDn9q2T2nBky7C5WMwl0g5+T6QXiDME AwOO5osMG9w0fpk4un/Wr83xy3bpD31cxXCosXlK40Ji/Xkt/hGJm0Q0Leg9qvE9JlCgMk1B iPT/jvqCZLGl8enT8SOKO74J8YE4EqoI0PXbpNYOEs2cjl+XO2dT7TNWABNpjWcJzqtn3N9u q87+RlUqxEGva51Tf3FCv/9UVunT6k+LAime+9znqieffLI6d+5cdUzuI7u2GMcDdefDolLX 3xWYUG3rJbEQMyUMsYcHQazB+gaV0gMYEAYKoiH5ikwiYlCbzifDIsqM6DsJxtQD6tLnWRKX dY4IV3BOL0hPKO3b72cLpKmxFxefGH5skAEMvBCxcSXEpgu6r8FjjlQCDn0KYrPBpOVz8eXh h+M5OOZKDNb3aMecz/0u5ybup2c7QsoZBI7KfViDoeqIXzk+1v+7PwY/n12IyIhsasNc175c EyhLE8wbr5iPPNYQGNLyqLSAJGRK72r5ZX95LlulQ6UBDKgdAkCfvqcahGkDi8h2Qa3JtgVE YKsTHhOPGf2mbRtjuDf3iWdCTD1ypFrD4osYi58YqUz/b4qw0CbW3wWS83FnwQX1+0kxjilc ONgLkLw0tisZmBCUJRGh98UM5kSQWK/WzSGmA2pnhGsEesYWQryOT1XPeU7AXcYWsSexWmN2 noSDDz6o3nrnnapPDOWP//iPq5deeql6+umnw7frNWUV7sNyzrsCk4eYmDhaXb9+QwRz7XfC 5RgsIktigrJYU4pcFm3QSQYJdBdAHZjdqwEYxdoHtdMbDkoy8qgGCXEX9wsPirjJA1rPtDzP /ZKPLAUFmPNwT1dtpy9BFXG+YwBi8UNpoc5Z32VBOHjboNBKSYES6MyIaCxIqLOOkUWKGFfq GwY37bDI6Jv1M+upQRx0fdQVwlBEG7kPpWh6ACYWfsGFeO4++qL+8xwmODwXi7vUNT0WgJ3n HNa44+a4pHPntajpmy2wJZfl3g7O4BkMGsZgNc9HhAhqvP0KPpklJoOPQ9zbxOHAzVQgn9/o JzqwiQzSyro4HhJZx/XrATD3Z0N93tJ8YOcw8JkH/Kc3NTdYfEmA79Tv65lwMR+cO6PQQtaB azjFGtV7SO9xPQ/3HKSQeFYxsHtAzHaJWuLxWDMDKYySJHmrDj/+8Y9VuvXX1XPPfa768z// s+r555+LtWejntdFSfDu5ftdgYmY8eSTT2gA5+VT+uAgJYhJYODIE6TD1mtKgwwDYG63pMXB YLDgAShA3dVEUN0O2Z+KejGh6C9wRsTDbLLnOFEn6HBYeB1faQrFQFkspS92vNMX9CrOs+XX gPai93FHMgVnIoaU4Oxs5sdNMJDvS2wq59qqebCo1Ffuh0hGsIXFuYMFrHbD6ph1nAB3BmYp 7pqwNU5gVGkAUFiL1RYgN3gOpBPAn8fcQfjoQhCCi1qsMxLjrKPznHZJ2bhlUdYApd1G104p PpsYl33lmDlgWGM1XqVl2yqDJR3bJVx2ZUMgYyWwthC5icHlxf+WSviM1ELGG84Pkc62D4xn vVSo0G9LlIqJXQESwPHPsjboF/c7fepU9Yh8uIwP3JI55U1/JyenqhlCEzXmQfj0ezsEPjML PzPj/O///m9Kgbxcfetb36q+9rWvVcePHz/wJ9vQZoJ7p/m9HWDvCEwr8hMT49Xp06eDupn6 cQPESUKweFge2mKkDSml/rSPKAl3RZTRIM1IZucFUDu1aPolbmCAB+hkoFD6o1/nkxWBNZc6 PXC7fpRuxBgNbgyk7o3S78VVhgpy/9IqW/quGgFjEctGp/CJIlpp4qmyt5RLZqJLdco3JsXk wDADEQkKi56qSexT30iOZrHwsrvE+gf3Kr9b/HQgfKmjup/cY510LaSEfNAuJ1/vdlmEjAML kgXIC04J1+A497a12IYec23frwQkx0od3oTP6kK5qErR2+CzOuBntp+YfrKIIZ6O2mKNwXUo XEb/YQYwB1uQXYXQ8buMC3q5DUgQItq9du1avHmxNpn7lAmj+k8CO8awL37xi9UX9IZIem1z Hut9Z2dfoafvx/3fe++9aIvSqSZmgY0susPpSez4x3/8x8hR/su//MvqqaeeOjD62VVmEfd2 ILwnYB4sChU6nhCQjipeEteJqSaDwcSHj1CUxc5dBrT05YWekKm8OUyZk4lhaEWDPy5wntID 39SNSV0aE8XmfMTc4xgdGAy9CQS4ijUTfQBKhu4KJxMoWAQltyod+17A5YIy8aGPduDz3BG5 pPbaqWiX9eMuLZq+ZXFsxXZeb5d/V7ybPnVjBdX92/Qcg/ofX+li7hNtHYjIEKKso4ZFUv/j aHeEz+8YWwox1pyC5GtzKXMN/o+xRRqhn3rz3caiIH46ZhHQ428uZsnB1mETkkb9yJKP1Qbr 1n42z7H/L7mkx53fzE05/+TJk8GxIO4sfNYN5wLWM2fOBKBw03mOLKXFutT1cLNe6ZebOm+C ax57LFQeEizQo3k5Agzwj49PVI89dlZtn66OSJflzb1siGMN86ZvVOc/cmQ8+giRePPNN2MM MZpZr3c8+AD91jXku/7gBz+IePL//g//UD332c/+nsTQLChjHu52sqnwiRMncuD4tkSMqWzo SFyTVxS5UscAAhQudDPEtizCWd42NygnnlQxrLuz+hwRZT+CKMuCwuig9zBUHiOMvm/BqbXw H9f3RSgdYNDvgOca9wK8+YG8WCEe9MXcwhSs7IM5pRcyi6CfELesYw7BDYclCt1QhFHbloIA 1pW8LLeHwIv+Nqvn79G5GBMuU1gL0TOL+bRVWiZjEbO2dA2VdKH67pPHx24WEwkDmk/H8Jax xhx31I7dECzGknA66qW0MBtIt5sX35v+wsXsvrHV2M9VcvjSyON11QhWWy9x8tNHODl9h9sx DtwPzoM3gGsBbDk+YW/IEthNje3Tjz5anTl7Nlx6xHLjSaANuCJtPibAPv/880pJO1udOnU6 yq6EGqH9V3d3Uwy478H59OfGjZsC94xE4Un9thFMCULhQmiI2fhckY6wDCNRERhC3375y19W XVpv23/3d9XnZSAywXQIZrPgPDQkz5QHKsYAvfbam8G6TdQBJINtRzgdSfVUU6ypxSrasUGg zE/kOBR7SYOyJ7CNiDLhs+rGFwWH1KQNkc2iYx9oInmR0R9FpDXA5CBiTHpUv1/XPVcAKiKx 2mPQGawy8saRHixUc8/GQbPYa04fopzgtHECSMlRr3eAC91S9zstXQZXDGZ87k1tXay4Fhlt tAIUnejRGGX0OwWxsWqXUgjn2s/pSXSQgC2oFi0dIGHgO7yO312z9vLlywfWZdsAbMWlfYOh jFDid+urnGMVhn7aqmn9qRRZS32X68zRbcRhPOkjBAMA0X/6CUA5h7lCrLwu4w9cz/20S8Lq Cffm2Gm5LZ5+5pkA0zuyllqvpb1nn322evHFF2WceS7ap98rKyKi4noU6O7rlS9eFZW41moB xIKxJvXt0qX3Jca+E9dxnGej7+fk06T/gHduU6VO9fug5h3VJ9Vgaqve+vnPqy59HxVXhpOX PlvP9WEAbQqY5pyIHtyEoOHp6Vl9T9QsjAxZTCtvaJCae5Xxp2E1zEYMzutUO3BOxMIVfHd6 0GOICTrnRhE5hAiIwxjXCy8Sg6fxdeqaUzp+Q9+pghcDkMVtJhExhcF1xXjnGzaKbbRpa6r7 Zy6nja8jRi3CztQ+Fsl2DAYSeSIxWceOAfgsYtpAYyOTdTcsh6uIoLmfNjqVYi+cFPO+La/o 1aEzQ6ywUhKrm/Ucj6+NJBbL4TqIitbv6I8XiYkS10ZIWg5MMNDMgW3ACaKCnxFimF1JBgKP buu37+VxtfhM3wAhgMH/x7W2LnM9RAfRFeDYNlCK2pxjbs8z0Na5xx8PgP9cQOBZ4WrokF/6 0pfCEINtBGYAI/G1UUi8VRbgTYjMfoSYAjzGCTGUdc332VlxRSzycEatv94MOqKrP/f8s9XZ xyaqn//6t9Xuu29HyZYV9QeLP1hY0zi9/Prr1ZHvf7/627/92yAMJnb+/EiAmdZcopaIBnwi bkA1lpfXso6DFS9nYBR3DdBhIMlt8Gk/pCfWFB+RdFMDNy4OtKQFgNN9VABe0P0oxjyIewOz P/5VLTJAO0NcJQAkBlPXtEGR4Ur6fRh9j6gS+s5nXuhOW6If5vYlQG29tc4a1kPd87Su7xP4 r1EqUgtpWu0vEFta+CHNKVjYdt04TpPFwaKyH9QLk3vbChoRPIBe58Ur62bosp040bM119yH 66xKmLPwCefx+FqHLK2k5aI3d7QOa73LRjVzR3Mqi2fmtiYeJuCea+uejkxCJUJnA0QYVvju UEvagHsxNzYilVZM7mXiwHVwQiKF3nrjjQBUApxKrQj0gBNwGQS0B2gBja2v7Qp635QLcH5p La4nwg1OvaR8VevtvfjnNd/rkuIg8tg0IMBHjpypnnjixWpg7HT1ukIAL0ivDdVN/WEMRnQf 8AHBeFzE40//9E8Poq4OA6R/b4pj+mRzQMCJLrm7SyLzDQ0ALgmczIhlSTQrgVjqIQc3xg9V 6C4MqjkBFthRODNGHl0wJOpKeUjEV9K0KJ0BZwWg6J7jUGMiU9A99P8y/kRERBEExNwIy9I5 OKQ3sh8yfJuF+4X7EAESvjldW3KRAA1OdgiH2l5Qm/P4TDUGPXC+LNcbYBbrvdD53y4du2MY E+cYWhe36AtHpU4tGyotqDtwaCq+L2WLq/235rDmfrYaekFznAVtfdT/W8Q0kDjfx6xHmUOZ g5bzaSLC/Utf7YHzPtsWbIkEmEhbGFvQz0iKsMGQ9rkn7ZhglpZMrxdzUSSeR6VX4u/8QEaZ 6zIcubof6hYWUZ4LYAJgjDw2Ah1YvjXL8zM3q5krF6o3L89Ulz+4IuPObJHFxMZYihYTp4Wo 4yrZwHYgrkjfrly5Ln31TPXdb3870h7P/9M/VVsiKoTsOSoN4gDg//Vf/zX68DlFDJnQNQPO ewKmJ4cJ4WZMKBXVrl1LO0kDTvbtoAPOHLC5vOyMjRWeVNrxwh0StUGvDLFTlKqP6u4SNaKA VwY8Bh7cE4+IuuJOgdMCRIIZqPEageo6Ro4gVeZY1Ii6uGTwW5HcTVsRAYNxRtee0G9TuV3I CgYC654xoDp2lYcgLzOLlHsEK+hai46WDiLVSefwYiKtGxpIBmyp23rRcF237oeVt1MLgr1W GBv6ivPbi93tc89Sh3ZfrEPbKGffJiBw8Dr9sdGFPoafT59IFuYaBi1jYP2QvtjRX86vOVqi bcnXSj/h4ACKaxArbYiDkNAXz73P9fUmHObQtIMIi5fgvXffrVbElUiq6JYb5NwT56ovf/nL 1Wc+85mDZ4JL8rZexyf3gFu//c671VV5GZaWFgOQVgt8DuOxituLyDTN+RbB9FTGJxhBlQLR aQcH+6pv/tmfVVMSwX/6i1/ELgQYg+gnxBoR+eLFi9VPfvKT6o/+6I9iTLh/SczuBNJ7BmYJ Tixf6eGJxO8J+RwWzsOSB+dJv93NG7moF7hDAFcwX4sC4afkHY7gDEzM00MS1dA1+Q4onb1C su6EANODQUqTNqfBRfyM7AR+Q1dDLNFCGdQniwwH8pbaPqW2lnROv86f1vlp75FbVcxTfkyg Ldw0jZIBP1kMtsHHKoBFMS+2kttxLjqYJ87GHwxIBgOTSX9Y3CXQw+cKmDIYSgMM97I1lvtb lGWMHfVk4sE8cn8SyBeImkGHz6K/geEABZ4R4gOnspWYduwmoa/WZTnOogeQcERv22h9lb7w vPTNxkGL5r6v9V8ACReECVwWp6SPowLM8889Hzolkpx92bFLm16Izdyf/zEoYby8dOlCzPue wu0igD6NXg7gL2KZte56ALN+xSMMseY62nr//UvVyupy9d/+/u+rv/qbv6kuqj9vSKTtJZhe 40ix7iGNKee/Ln0TIKNfH7hb7oTIfPy+gFmCEwp95sxjomKj1dTktOT7kfBLMRGx6POgW99w fzzoDokr9dAAg04knnSHBUNge+ZAoecgkmpwFjFCYDTCtZFBe0QTwR4jlMtcQexFF1VbO1pI j2gRH9XCA6zEfop0VU8gQmshzhJLqu9YV4nXZBJYrNZTAISBaG5gcFlfswvB7o5SRC1BXLos LJaa05UcJHS3PH4Oo2NhWuzk00YUJhzg2vLKOJsj+xkMHHN2G+NKq+EyKXAaFyQMx6uWorl9 fbTP9xKYHhfatwgM4My5HEPrFD1zKoMSomJ9lL7zu8Vv1geMgLHFV8l5lId5RrGqL774XyOw nHMYBxL6ESMBHe3AuViLGJdee+3V7PxPgQkOeOjt7dLaFVccYAe2FIzAZsXeB5b6RSZ0cEEk rZvivK/89KfVS3/xF9UXvv716rLE5wF8stn1g+2BayAkv/rVr6pnZEFmDG6n2jXi9L6BiXly ZydZRvf3VWJE9UYB5/YOVEim4tHxsGxherZC7wXFgNhwYAriCBr0O1sgI00pB6Kb8pozcN5i dp/4oUJMAHBQSgERY9ARqrxhINEEYSBCTCZovlMDS7BCF8Yp/c/WBOifuGq6tMDxmeIvg2sw 4YjSLvvBMQiERS8DLTJUMjdyn0orpcVaEzaLejaqeKE6YqcMBDDnMwEzJ+dcuC2cyOIt7XMv +5RZxLZKcy8bnzjfHMOAXoLYEayh32z04V7Wh1moFnNLzu1nKomXjV0YfdD/4DTmijwPhAQi TuAKxirGyuCNsDs9g63ABIujtwEuFjr3ob2USK/tGNUGXI+KfOxNurCwWL377nuROP31r381 uDvn4FFgvGxZ5p59lCvpVdy1ioQBOMaHRGvqD6VsHqSVpegb4HrrrbeqWfaEVR/ekd/y2Rde qF4UYfip+jKlY/vKTulZ0xhiQ9Gb8EAiiGBWGKeaed03MDHyyKWvB1RQ9UYKel5dTVE/lHmI ymgkr2bDCMq4q9NBxaCinniLcjG5DG8GLrGx/H9Qfa98oswhA6j+rkHFHwq3ndaAd2tih1hk orxHcr0axF78onySDgRXxYg0pIXSA7D1vkaQtdpAHKa6AYPUx3UAVOdP61z20eQ+TGx69iKx uGHk7Rc1gK1jlJTTWTEOhPbC8eIsuTfN21FvMc9WYOtI9IuFzGfsyMa4ZB3H4rDHH7DgX40y pNkVQ26jXzaU0XY8g9qx5Zb+cW+D3QYg2xG4P+IkwEthcamCAG+7WMzBbXBzpT5zF/p+SrGt PAeckJdLYxJUwHEkiYGBIT3zuAxNx8LQRLvvv39V6tV1WVHPxhjgujBnp8/0nw2bNrflApxb VCjldKhhLSoYRgQQha/J26T/PCc67PPPf6569ZVXq2tr1yPb5BkB9QUFMBAM/47AOYSIP5A2 jiJQZT6s0Jf1vhLAtKR1N4DeNzDBW6soScoEx7dJpkeq8WLqCZViILB3kgnOOfj92lWhbVD6 xjUNCtkSJ5hcsseJuCGTQVR9nRImRMUAFhYEFlcMHRnoBivXOLueBO4VLLU6j7y8yOjAwitL IOUdcbegZ8JJT+n+MxpIxFruQQADKVmndbxD50xzb4w+cMB8T/bajA19sOaie2TOyf0cZWOj ixemwWdR3p/mUKWLwwYzrmHyLPIxnhAvFq45l8fYRMyTbD3SYrWjswxkPp0wzTUGHQQInTZ8 dtn4Y86Y9LFbhapJu9oUGCCcGF/8cnC/Recy3I1z4OoWi1kn1mstafDc5sg8p909RO3YaOMQ RtYSoi16Z8pWaVeEzjEB51yqQKB1d/LkIwIsltTW4LTvymBEMWva5tlsgU6EU1Zyrdfd3a5g MB0diNWI6imYAa7PWM5ITz392JnqxKmT1bSi4AZ0r4tq+/FzT1bHnjxXjYsrDy6PyMW3WC2u L0QsLv2D2Fy9eqX6kz/5YjCkw173Dcy0MMh1FFXoT7mFDIgXprdOgJIxGZEnh2UREWZRAdVS nHfnF2ILum1V+N6Q6wXuuKTFx4If0gCwCewIYoUebk/UH26GuEnoHa6TYay2up6g+FXdewAj CA5+9YWJi41lNQgELrBvCpkt/NZJRTcshnBKfaKT4g+FIFylv+oH4u5JUclZTQbpWuFjRbzV bycwxOCGUF8iAihbcO3oZ0FBRAK4MU7Jl0ufLFI6mNz6GIvEOpYNYDaMsNCtezHuBozBycJi 0dAWY13q6/bV+j4WFS2Kh8VZzxFxpwRLqJ9YFg0gFjHczWDbVF/G2BMFbkS6HvOne9I+bRpM tiGwKAEP97HNgfMw1LBe8B3CUa0W8Gxc47G0/on4StidnwOiy7OMyTsArOjfsspxIi5ab8co +aTAwr0hCnA9AtTn5qazq65HYyWr/Q5RYKlQV1dXT3Devh6J/ypksbFJ/DX653Bw43XV42Vr iS6NEXm6PNs8PuO5qerpJ56oXvlf/1t7yEhNUp0itphg3hIB3NazXgu1LjGru78+FDDdtMVV FoQXBRNqa6Gd+IAzMgVyTuGi9AAW6opK8ZPCQ1ziuhy2i6rVQhwkIii7OZNBMKyIEHySbFU3 rAk5qra69ebVr0/0yNgaQNf10SblJTHeaFKwtLbqOiaVSaTYFQvsiDgpKV03RA3JEoAzoz/2 ahJpL7aKVx9wX2BMuqFnIvWLDX2orLcAmAAefQXouDqQCHjzjDjMtYAAp4001g3N0fzJ4rEr hHO82A1Eg9E6awQiIC2ETiMOC6GgDYCmMTNIveu3rbK0Z8MMbdIe9W2oKKGbVr3cW9czd/Yd Qn12tcj2ZFMAEAAYA9EJjfuivhOKyDijHpjg0AeegUX4hS98IQiHExwAIjonYinrAWIOGP3M FostdeD7LDNAACTFp4c0H92EcKrtZc05zwrQn5Qv024ezqV9+vFZBZZzn3ffJeyR50MVowB5 Kjbd14c/NRcN07O0tOmcvUWNxaricGej2PljZx/X3CrYfXVaCfV7qci17n3x3d9UQ2NHRcj7 qoX5Ga0DdlBLmU+MN33gOdCrHxgwDdBSZ7Jl0lSdT1vZ6CyTRPI15fit12xssHsYeYNregCC i5OVEWpH9ggbyUJJSJq9pEmAsyFKtQNQAXtdE3VM5/CJKItL5Qbin64dz5E0BL4v623LL6Lp oNqfJwtd7VH4CQ5CgDIuGFwykQOq9wndg/BAAusxDqGjAs5W/KK6X3A4nQeYT/GbFgG1jDrR 7fLvJlKNRM2ANdA8biZ6ANHfLepaDAYQveQy6p6xuZCe1e4Z67WN9NkWY47TDuIP9yg5b7hw ZCfo3ZWIt7Qrf7L8virojLOdvNMxPTvjvKI3McOD6sMS0on+91wDcPRACDY6nvVFdC1caw5T NGFz7LXHg98BskENl02bGElCgMjq97CmawwYlzWB5LcSWSGWL8gog27ahXqV1QMCHc6fvyjm oHA7XZu8JYjCyVpavnt6sPKmRA3886uKtX31//2yGptQxQOpcXgHFrVOZgW4l39zofrqV46r av2ECr0lW4sJi4kihONutohyjj4Sjtk46SUYy9/CupkNNQwsFNk6jhOeNzaOZV+U9oqUyID4 Q/GkRYm/iCpxnhb+EnWD9KB2TpPzqacOMZecTxYM+hK6IHwV5y/VEthXktCpCbUbLgGUfy1A rLlzEmO3WNiI0wCWDHsmHGDSrib4iO6PXrusRYm/dAlqiPUQPZTFrTdiMG6XTc36I3BS/F/o 12qnFGe9+BgjKHwZgWPOVoKwcZw9lrQZaXGIlOo/C6EEsTloeb1FT3Nn67z+tCiLiN3ZKvG2 Y6fqb0ulRN3XHY1TN6pB5tSdlOhgTrMEYfWG/uFDxM0BADFKJdFT6kzWnWmzFLPdP+udfAYB YQyRzPSJ+2sSsRDphnlSG0OIzNLz3tb5RAghfg7KFbIvK2tsXajxWZibqVbF6ahWwRrBirq6 uhghpRh+cvyXKk1I9ZJhU8NajYxOaL+WvmrqzdfCz5vCShNRo81lSXl4E6yGeF2W83AggdwO MA3H/mDAPAyspiKA1SU5HLrGJNifF5USAGJBbaA6cNEUEZPy6HAWRzKwjuHzxOizRICAFgD5 e2ToHUHhJ9QP7qVz2NGZtC1ATFD5qMRlc0fvwYIfFHAGV0IUV7vzWqyEAaLzchwOCTgRbwFh pKjpf87F5cLvQTD0Gwu7N2e+wGUaLXQ2DHgRlj5LT3I5tiHiQni0QDcQ55EMsnGhTGcqObEj j0oVxKKnAyQM0JiHdulg+qPEYxm1wuKJ/kMUMYzpf3JSCV/kxTOgg2GkwbmOa+T999+P3xy8 gQHIIrxjh0vuSfsQY9qyIQspaYDdAIiM0m+xL6jaZNyRhtYFmgGNBRkijMHJIQUKjB5TMIp0 fBF7CqdRWQ87A+uIynesH0JLMVR2tOtp9/BxJp19cXEpggmQEval9pALuq/z+c1+Uvps+wFj Z4LqueL/FDiSIsIOez1QYDZSbP9vXYfFUeqoTJjBCpVF9/BWcYRmJWNDytaH2s3J3L22lowR XItMbxGIgbnODbMyjr7YrQFeY3ABF+IrC1sDjIV2QxMM55sjDEuTT/RQ6G2aHAxS6J1wVWJ0 ozyiricdjcgjQI2jnk/cNQATi2/UoSVDnz5gaNK5cH+7G8K+CRnOL4OTfy1d2OGeopETbbeO ichGITGDyjGyNgBxrUFgcJrrlhZVhwfSjvvQJveBDUC3nUdExfxDaZknW4TrsGrii4SLYchB F6R95tV9Ym7pD/87NZDvgJiXkx/4XNe4TWosAWZUwlBbI7n8SpuIVJvitrGCUong5RalEw6z gVEuAaNzCb9k79E+Razdyv4gUJ4ylnL5tXcLkJRGSbWP58XxqRHUIhHcIDPToG88o4tYRxKC XtaZTXzDhrKeiNZhr/80YDZ2zBTG4p05KouWhcJDM0lMHpMJKFl46KMbG6nuz/h4SofawHKG uKpCYsvLi+Fs3lTuHAPlONFtKi+IWs4hBgqIgGUq655YVDc00BNwVk3GdXE49EsWAf5Ohp3a O4AI4AWnyNySIAb291hHH9b1GEew+KKXEuQAgLHuRpqarrtJsSx9b1d/r2FJJqAii89RTTAD 1RwvrJfqb8QHq50I8cBIBcjhHupnOmTo3ioNwvEDMbSg6jZQlHPCuHsOPDcl173bwvL5ni/O LWNW8TE6Q8klUKyPuX/2ZZahfSx+rgv3CgYntUsgCXNEqco5LNICLfHWvRpzajCx8VHv7M1q dlk7ZKuKwYoCBRijFXHMoQisP6l1MxprK0RS6s0KPIMKVOjqgthrjJkHVBbsGFozeBLgspbs 7BYyx4e4Q6QYVxtAE5MhVe8W4b3bGD40wCw76UVlkJqLcg6DZ1ndHDWJCKRUscNXMsvji2IB AEbEFdJ5GBgGzzGniC8WhadoI4tglPwIQ4ImHy66h2iES0T3n9KEj8EB9UnZ/0eJWNFEsEAI VGDYEWEn0Hf1OavzeGHVReQ8pr7hO8Xqu6pnGdEnpVQoRHaQqQIHgGsAYkRxrtX9I9hAb4xJ TyIyq72rum5OCxDTPZyDZ2UB89x8sjAYDyeu201Cn2xoif7pXoxnCWjrvI0uGIf6mQD4vDLy iHYirFEiZ18uhOX+eD6Te0IWXp1nq7M/OUbf+d0EteTg9JdaRrywzhIQge+7BReb9i0ZHh7X 8y2LIyoIfeKIQjflj1RB5xWSIjQevTp+/PgJcfJUG9ZRXUhivVnFYO8TIomWlqi2MBJV3gF0 IyFDCkKauygdGusxNZdbtGaCROoZkWKIncXi29ub/PyHvR5KYN6t055EJt4ik83/XoymVP5k ImyWh0IzeJFZInM3wISr2vpra1qIwOiG6Jj6vowuB6fKBiP8fZvqA7pr6IVYKTX4iLgUFYOj Is4SEgiAAChB9ZSdwLc6rYmjSgNiLpZewE2gNFvfcT6cGB/qAlSXsELdz6IRpT6p1nAMULOA CU1TO+ShzpP0G1n6eXOebAEnCgXxOYI0sqGJcfZ40rZFrlKX5XtJGLmG8baVuASyOSrXhNhL EIDuO65nsgvGCepOj7JOXepkbpNnKMVnR0FR8gUidBRiim6HGqGxovAz4ioEekOWUcLxIjx0 TGBT7Ou7itJBmsIiDCjPKSgAIHr9sAaQzFhXrANXNhgdHRFXHQuiBVHvF6G5rDhZnpM+sZYA 97JAG4H6mocO1gquNp0PgUXSIjyvJGp3W+cfO2DyMKVrwf/bdeBF5HAuBtgl7R3k4I2K4KpJ UU/B4EmHTUWhACsAtuGJKJfQd9XeO1gIoYq6+XVNAAm1xzFQ4FvEKquJ2Cb8S9cAVETSAV2L 7koaGsfhnhQaQyd9RPdBLL0sUMUeKnpxHHcMtXYp/5kWnCzVAB39mYAN9GSdF/G+gEztEwyw KIujuZgtn2TZHyFYQOeloDaK/YkTw4H1PaoCZuvynVwsHmtz1rAGA5LcZ+bABpHQFXlrLBnb SSzoGl+qB/Ic5LK6j40LlGttpaUv3Meck9Fh0U+orS7KkwqMuMC4BuIDEDl/a2s9RFTmHhcJ Rih2DuMZSVkkwIFiWxZH6btD9BxCacCypmwxRgqDQ04pkIHnYk3BbamWwHfeNr75ubgHojdz YwPWJ45j3umB4uGJxEFBz2/OtSGD74AURZ/FY8uZU5li0Qc3XcqhcIi8Eke1MNbXU5FkD7wL SQeXYWIAq9pnQuN+Oo4OOQ9gcuWEKCCttlr0u3fJip3GtLCJcCIZ/IzEUGsg6E9w0ylRcIoZ nxDlRa+8qP/x6WIh7NKCOKr7UFoFdwy6KWFlLMakf6dyJHyPSuyIjRojxor6q1BlaiQRnEBB 6bA+Z73WBg6DkU8D0IAquVmjSyb+xxAFWHXfAT1rm7gTlSBwKyB5zOMuydy15Lzcy7qmpSD7 ZfkN/2MvBhnZGpBMKIQ2IS547NhRuVIUTjk1Lcd/2gbC+2sy788pPczuGcDlZ3LJTO7lkjcp 6gojVNo9PbijxngiopJaqp/puyO1ABuAJUg+RHF0XvWROVzQefSXvE7KmJQGvbuB82PJMe/0 QI0OeE+wz2cCHPpmB7sd3MlotBGGJSbI3NV1dDh/dZWoJMReVUZbln9VMb89WgAfYFInT5I0 HwxMZHNogc8juuq4dUMWG2Z6RLGwRGOx1aRidELMxcIbonPmZGtEo2gBU9IitiLQg8hTGPuq oL8CpjF0Hh3D4DSAuAT3EIeAotN3gACXIpA6DCZaHN06d0LtPSJgXEQP1v9P6d4YqiazwaIz 99Eciz7ZjWERrjQGWRQtwwHxK7arTydwT+j7gu5DBYiI+RVXp6IEbirCKH19o/+Vcw36AC+6 v8Z3RtkcPFuLrKWDWI9VmrKvb1BzI3fILlX0SVAntSt9Es43OjIoC2uSSACVwweJUkuRP+zp ikif/M17CtObX1Ayvs6N+cJ4x7EdGY80/yZegJLQUxKw6aslh3gm5g5Cot9PnDgeXLOZ1ycK mLd74EZKXIK1DJ5mIpwCBYW0fmrdNCg1Rh90Bv2+rImBoq6Jm45oYczOKNZUxgHOJ0yLc1Nw hLgVgM3inheaKSftRVC5FsVM1m3oC5nytBWLQvcjWGFYbWEUonAZVmT8seFf1f0JUcSvSuTP oLjDOtyf1CQRhmWMG7h4uJfawZCFlZhFc5TnRrxUm7h7hgnqR0/GJaFPMk7MeW2l5ZlKg4+N OIjDREBZVwWMBGVQK/gIxaow5Kg/BAgsUJ1fr5ac51qGDPLMDjmEGDBWuJVCIsoEo5dd5NQP akS1KLRv9p23FYkj4jaoKgcC4CMnSeLvDXEVXROj2MiwYnulf5IZ5ZQ1xyPzO5vd9in9q6U1 wYKwPTgmzxPZO3oWLL3vao/OJQUUhIFL43ZCwISbTuV6tg5HNZHh2sFBDEhjQQCaeX3igXm3 QSipdDlgdqLbD8gAl1kjTl8DfHwHxMeOHo+JTBFK6K6IkhiWsAJSdSCBM7lrUhiirZ20DSeO YAS4ADou5nVADQh0HAcbeup5dEotToLvR3D+63s3gMhcEyMLKWpjcupDENoJxND/cJUZ/IEA Wf0YFAVnC3d8rYjIYbDQPSnHEtXts+5snzBj4ioLpTEojHACM3VVActVLMJZrYi8Un2Pqodq jyghjC2xjwh6ovrPtk/v50grREBbds0lGVv06NB7kSaQXETwCFZ/HLFe+iKGs05JLlPTkwLf U9Ipj0a6Fvdna3hbfrd3sQKn/WXYldquGEtFUcNqSzmdUfWxtbo5mcDH/QEwnxTtuqgQQ9bE 9PSUADdcvaBE7cV33qr2SQ3DbZUlABt6GC8MSGe1lZ99toeB81MNzHJwSs5aummsuzK4dtCb sxqs1k1S/C/Ak6En/Kap7AcGJRJtd5VFA5c1WLmeIGrXWI3sGzhh1l/onx3/xKO+C+dA18UV gm6mxX0DYMHNEZuxDuOGQYTVuXDOacWKtshKOy7AocvuafHM63f29ISL9eGy0W9k0swLrNS3 IbM02seiixgm7oavEKMGbWOgct4sfcQw1Y90QAyr/kfUJA+R/nRDWIhfRaTXbxRPnuAYlm78 vWqbNDN2QLPRx5Zi+y0pITkhorKgPkBA+kRsVhSwsHTylPopI5pEdwCxpzG/eOG8gsjnNK4i XOKcTzzx+EEZyyCEEB09l11ujnTi3lhz9/YUaz2V9FPmzrVizcEJK+QNSHHBfe1r36gee/RU 9T9++G9RPI0Kea6J68rzSESPP342RFlboWtgHjYCd/m9NOXbGGEqaPHGgLa+Yd+qDUw2ECD6 ks0AKNFjiADhnM3NNVV6mAu/66rCvixGp41ViWhKRhx8YSwqAqdDh9F7Wt/HcRUIlAv4yXCJ 6GW/ZXAsLeDI0VQ7Q7rfdbVBNsSEwuPYK5T9H3HNECs8IT0UwJFhskqAgdo/oe8sZP7vJ0ZU 509DPLLRJiyYei8j/iIGQxD0psofweyUaaEODtsDxa7OnEuupYDcQUZIBjJGJ9dRMoeyH5Mw S4IyovaOnmFa9z4jieDxp5+RlXq5ui5Rduyo8iV7KKt6RVztvQivA2g3b96ovvKVr/xO6REb CZnLMkrK373PC/oghNH5q+R0XrhwKeYDQGOJ/eY3X4qxvSQdFjuAibpjZjkXi/Czz372IEim GXDWHPM+gWvqzuXWJayvNO7f6QAIPuGOFtecVQNoAeb2dtp/hUiltN+IdkzOAE0xm8l9w4Ll kwkmTpQFFpkOutaJ1FxHWyTydoqj3MQaKvHvuPRfQgh39YmxokN1T1uoVC7go49SqjH2Ps3G Jqo6cAxgEBxBkEWrFmukiek3xOwoNYpEoU/S3NBfPS5sfTGrc57MetoUeqfaO4FlWPfbpSSk jpG6p2KR8SIEDjeLy5uy8G8IJFhzCej4ADGS3cBUofHEsSPVpEBx/drV6uQplbVUPiVpgwQr Mh+E/73++hsRUIDV1v2yq6f03TraiWOI3Lbo80mdnx/96EfhRnMZzu985zviyE9UP/zhD0NU xy5gQk1brhNFbVnO872aWXI1MJsZpUPOKbmmMztswTTltPhUmunNHW0ZdokSxCjEJMRcuOb8 PJZgyn5QZU75fxKNAW0yyhDxJEOTvgN6ckFjK3aBxsnq3POorM1EFqHTLWEY0mJf1eK+TqCE xMtHBVxZJ6oegW8EFxCcT+dEBo6ug9uFgQgxFS4CeASoJZ1H/ivBEIjLhCLCXRGtqas0oHYB GVvZY6XtY2sEtTmne7UKZOiNIbJilBJYl5AOBFwKXIcIrfaQFCjbwU7gN3NC+Ltvvx0Flb/6 1a9G8Wf5fKozx8eryWsfVD+Q7rcjNcJhgOiFRN18/vOfDy5nV5mtrQdZLSEFUO+3N7JMGHPG l3GkZg/pZwCsS0aitbnJ6jtf/S/VpAw+b6joNMQGTp+s9imInfbxl5KPCtd09FYzS64GZjOj 1OQ5ZcRMaVgycFlkZUic6886xIvrHXnEp62ycNMUMI2RiC31iGRKSecOLwTcxHCuaVFuKdRw V/mCaySgCyzcJ6g5eqIWyC7+Q7ZO0DW4EZZ03Z5AMCJ99Ci1gfALAkrEUX1HQMaVg0WYaCYC xjHq4GMFoEQxAVysxIQiTuo42TeTOk7mDpEv81hTdQ1BAKGv6dic2iKutFv36VWfKCf6Adeo P33q83X8ivqOUQhJIGJcBXj+31EEz89+9nMlXD+uhf85PWNn9eipE9WREyerK3NrKhf5dhAu QLeieOpfaZNZx606sMCZO4y7pOB4rW+R28mWkaRzSd9c342iXlQfoMQJb8D72IsvVN0j49X/ /T/fV6D85YMcWM+ZDVacT4K2S3063/WwJVUD87ARus/fHT3iy8v/y+/WXTnmQGoWiveMBNRQ Y14pBjhZc52/Oq/yLKlkh/xrsgi3atNVefLE8dqqVXHdeRlC4KiuSBBB8GqrjxBBgYNSL7gi ppS0vIgVV9xzSW8ihQAI5VNIjUOUHBPY2F2NkEMsxIQqwgVx0SDmwl0DpOiLiNU6h6B+op04 too+qhd6LG4T/IKI4KP6H0PQKLWCyRghYALurOvZSXVDIMW/ymKPhY8YLNEU/fGNN14LLjg0 1FPdmJJfd/yUtmD/RnBIOBmpf+jWxD2/qvqujN/XVWoScTQZdMiKkVrQomCIfdAp95ByMFv7 ZCFW9NDFi5e0Dd9vwh9K0jV6O8Bmm77XX3ulekvV4B0p5bBGb43BeXBpDF4mvhDQZsLyamDe J/A+yssOUqvgBlhW88sTbiBD/RHPUsB+qsuDLpRAh8glS+dZWW2pp6Tf4XwAF50L36p1U0cw lfGg6IabOmdSAKPeEqLXgMTNUQFzRvddI5CBKCL0L0Q+vccEkvfEAecRVfUbXG1ZICSqBzBG qRe4EQATIG4S+ZPD8iJXNf++p2NDOm9J94Nw4P6JqvoCzqN6totwep2PGwMiwh4us3o29Nqf qq4rdXr+6q//utpZlQSxdaEaPfZY9Y1vfCPG6HXETI1XP7Vlde3LL78cGxe98MKXtG3BcxEl 1ZpT2ra3FP6HVKP7OdQOVxdlWakD9KisrwQSEITy7nu/rX74o58cbFfvSoAuAMCcsWcJb160 B2G5nV/9dmupBuZHibD7aKsUf4Ob5EAEvtttEFbVzDVtkDDVxXJofYZsGVLgvLUci3xiIvlS 0VdxISAWLy3N59BD1S0ifhSLp851/iqB3mwfMMBmrQIY3JPkc7jYOhZgDEOARW8spkQeYSkl mICww2VcLsSX6vMIoFX7tHOMlCmif9RG6MH6rV/EYF6/ITKj/1IYjRf7z8CFp/Qb+9WM0Ees 0ejSiLtwe0qSCqT/8R8/qoaGh6pvv/Tlqnt8OJ4N0Z3q7D09vdWvvFcK/lYRNgxCv/zly+G+ IpAdsKUoJrJxUu0mh2DCIZ9++jMRgzuse/SIU78lY9LPfvyTalLtcF7KXkqZLk40QHwFlN5J jPlyHHEzRqAamPcBpgd1SQlam/YdIQOXbQyJc6qUa9BaT43ge7kOACac1QEShKqlSKYUwmYx mYWNCExplzAwCXyR6aF2lohCAoCZWIRuqb5QVpSKDC6kRbQSJVoIxieQH4CRTcPyHRLgEGcJ 4ifrBhcLdZtO6F7TAlS4ajBU6VrCGnHRkJWD9RZf6aa4Ofpxh9p5nEAJXfvP//w/Q+9mq/XO jlllerRFFskzzzwdz4IeCOCc18umtHBbdqzD8Y/k4dS4W4QubQUBh7R4+vNfvFz96t9/WM19 cFE1nXqCmM0JoMwVbcONn3rqM9V3v/vdCJaHCDAvjgaqOeaDQs8DvI9FXn/aZ+ZsD2dkODLH x+1acSAEXbYozCcU31w5VTLEyIT4i4WRAIgkDsPMuafLaBCkHUEV+uR6V9x3PwDXrN6ItHvi KHNYgBHnsOzqGvJfo0aRQDcukMFVI1BCQB7RMQqdoafiEsL/uaoFDogReyd1X6r7tRJzix9W 3Pdfvv8v1U0BDR2SKnxUSQAIbJ8AaCalf7P1Ac/A2AAWuKCJnVUGPyPE0BXtKChGXdpfaPMg LK+LqpzRcv1G1QKB0DNQCI2xQA/91re+HaVUOI+5QLxlbJym2MySqTlmM6P0kJ/TmNPo/73Q ygwbG5V4JGeeQNkNWig+Oix70OCySelwR/Sd0ENKthDsT+ghVSGIJU2J2NZfbY22frwoEEBI wu2hdrHizgsULfqfMi9wPsTYawIZDnpcLrHVoRZzp+59Shyd32YkglJAbUzXU1EC3yapeFNq o4/2BSL6wc5aVN9j27vHFNg+MTEeG15hHT19+rHYHYDxAajh/9W1Dmjgep4/kg3I1tELNwkb AgFKInrQcYnOWqSaIhlDiMBqA/2f8ikvvfSS3DfPBhCdALCocaTUiWOMm1lONTCbGaWH/Jy7 6anueumygePxf1kIjUUDB7klcqU0ObZHpyqEi6Ohf5JlwyImIMJ1bxBh15Rtk6Kb2L07lXEJ UZjFrI4Q6qfadAGEqNtLDKw4YUQDUQVAi50425NwM9wxAue0AMnO4rhcKKQG96RKwTkB6wOs vBhqBOY13C0CB9v9wt3glidOPKK42RNRZ4h6Q8mXmIpjd8tXuS+Qm6BQ2eD9q9oMS+6jXbml ePGMGM0oIAbQSB4g3vcm+bO6tlN9Ztx69T77+DltbvSl2J8zlWTVjnP8rjBBiqAMyLWCZILO 6b1p7rasamA+5KD7Q3SvtPxaHHb1c4efhRi8pyig/aPZPZOAZzHWsaSuNI5vdVkgJlVqZWlW 8bJpNzB0WO9C5rBFuI7YT7UlcO0RlJ8D5HlW9EuMPI+QdaLFP4ehCWc9YrPORSzGmguXJVAf bkXZDtLhcM1c0cIf0DXc++LFCxGiB8fDdULC9MDgSHVU++ocFzAXBbQ1ahtrA6AZbX61dkNV 4QWeBdrHgFVkvpDKt03wO/q6+hPZNeofFSdOn35UWwE+UR0/NhYJC9jFotC0CFpn63413qME eQUnwEEdYHLYvNbAPGyEPgW/N8YEp7IkWE1l0NnVRr+i/JubXZEWxbmOYkpGpeS2CV1U4NyU AWZn62i1uk6xNIIk4K5EKlEZ4tZ27msyqLgaA+4MV8KDUJCHSgghG/diJLqsdx+B+TpOCVIC +TEk0U+4H+AguogAC0pT8orcSl2PyIsICjCIdW3Xc/UpqmdM127kAm/xHARN6JwNghpy1g3P abGW9mmZiCgIAyIw44KvkugedNd5gXp/X/vyaENbDGtYeen/gu7X3ZXG6dZ+nHdfWDUwPwXA u9dHPLActlA8OuVXuryGMsEFQpK2+wKMBiqcdGwsLb5tVWsn4AHQumC3093SloDorVSMSBXr ImpJnNXhbBEEgfslgz44JlUbEHnFUQk3JP+RUMCIasJSi04ooHVlHZlMmAmswAIQ7h10QYBG /+D81/S9TbHDDvCIagw6l3pMWJQj1U4vR2MhbkcQvq47RRSVAMl9CR4ghG9hUbHMS3PBKSke PdCntL0dSQOd2mG6c1zBFUBtPyy1zbxqYDYzSp/ac26Vz7RPdX9fu6Bl3Y6cxwCRFjQL29Uh +D2lUSVwpigluGcKvse6y//ej2RVgQGpgkTaf4RoHPQ03DgWhx1X7CLZezku17HJ9IEwvv28 AVJUkdC8ESzQkxPfLbZzTbc64ZIhTC/9RTQFfADUGSiR9ie9dgALrdpZk3tmVJFGfRigssSA 7uj42K4u6g+Jsw6KSHQq2olq7R1LGhskjs54zmZeNTCbGaX6nBgBc1JzE47Z8gtA+W5XjesB 4VM1OO17dfB4xL6GESn5WRH/ku+VCnUpn5U8VrgtXBYjFPvZxEZU+EIlKnLM8cXmcPST0L59 vQmId50jP0MUzNIL7uaiba7142csAY+4HH5MAXYMMReuHQEJifgAeM4naZpn7OpKu1j39GiP F3FKtgEcVsFpvtelRWowPdARMEAbI5fohNOpzEmdpEzEDQvV/lYDLBVAS8XP7NIBqInjpsgm wAynXVlRgrcspxACwMW1Njg5wsbczIWZHWAOKOmb3Rh8d5AB3zmfT4gL/kzv59nSor1Wh4ZV XGtQIEy7iIelWbok28P397MTdW/ex6Qz6jq1s4mzdl7v6Eq7zh32qjnmYSNU/35fI2Cx8YDL kuOZF6T1OnM43wDDiP2frhZBO7YAE3IIV70VxI++mKrvJ5+qUtkEVpd1gbN6819zdAAcUUz6 NKcDgHBE/J3E3ba3ExTQLQ6Ydj2HY9rvmYCLnxMwItbrrYQBfY39Tlq0HUN6Lsps6h7a74Xz 04vIq8NByZk1MO9r2dUXfZgRaPS7ui2OW9wt6wqVO2CX2TYs/mT9TLowgHVNHVejv929DEo+ uY85owMxEDkRk60/NwZwBPDkwGlR0MC+0sPw3VJDyLuE3RqbKMBScEiCGz7GWyR8mEmvr/14 j0AjpzVXLeuxlgnHFNcycAAar2ZKd9xplAzyPXG/uyU2s+FFEgBSpTx///12m+OQjdfVHPPj vY4/Nb1v1F39f5mpUXK2uwHP4uxh4GwmC+QPNQE1MP9QI1u3+8BHoBmjCmD7MBz1QT1UDcwH NdL1fR6aEbiTjvsgO2hu3PjpPtTAfJCzUd+rHgHMQYQVZv8nXN6J6ujRdjvVwKyXSj0CD3gE AGNZ98kcvNRpa2A+4Empb1ePwO0sx43F22pg1uukHoGHcARqYD6Ek1J3qR6BGpj1GqhH4CEc gRqYD+Gk1F2qR6AGZr0G6hF4CEegBuZDOCl1l+oRqIFZr4F6BB7CEaiB+RBOSt2legRqYNZr oB6Bh3AEamA+hJNSd6kegRqY9RqoR+AhHIEamA/hpNRdqkegBma9BuoReAhHoAbmQzgpdZfq EaiBWa+BegQewhGogfkQTkrdpXoEamDWa6AegYdwBNq/973vNVeB9iHsfN2legQ+qSPw/wEh pbAXU1rUtwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

‘Solitaire’

5
The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Classes 9 and 11 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and correspond to the following descriptions: ‘Accessories for apparatus for lighting, in particular for flashlights (torches)’ and ‘Apparatus for lighting, in particular flashlights (torches), including parts and accessories for the above-named goods’.

6
By three decisions of 11 March 1999 and two decisions of 15 March 1999, the Office’s examiner refused those applications on the ground that the marks applied for were devoid of any distinctive character.

7
By the disputed decision, the Second Board of Appeal of the Office confirmed the examiner’s decisions.

8
In that decision the Board of Appeal, after referring to the terms of Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94, held that, in the absence of use, and in order for the shape of goods alone to be capable of constituting a distinctive indication of the origin of the goods, the shape must display features sufficiently different from the usual shape of the goods for a potential purchaser to perceive it primarily as an indication of the origin of the goods and not as a representation of the goods themselves. The Board of Appeal further held that, if a shape is not sufficiently different from the usual shape of the goods, and potential purchasers do not therefore perceive it to represent the goods, then it is descriptive and falls within the scope of Article 7(1)(c), as would a word consisting simply of the name of the goods. In the Board of Appeal’s view, the essential question is whether the representation of any of the marks in question would immediately convey to the average purchaser of torches that the torch comes from a particular source, or whether the representation simply indicates that it is a torch. The Board of Appeal added that it does not necessarily follow from the fact that the applicant’s goods are attractively designed that they are inherently distinctive. Nor did the Board of Appeal consider it to follow from the fact that a sign is to be refused registration under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 if it is devoid of any distinctive character that a mark with the merest trace of distinctive character must be registered. It considered that the very essence of Regulation No 40/94 entails that the degree of distinctiveness required must be such as to enable the mark to function as an indication of origin. The Board of Appeal concluded that, notwithstanding the many appealing attributes each shape possesses, none is inherently distinctive to the average purchaser of a torch.


Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgment

9
The appellant brought proceedings before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of the disputed decision on the ground that the marks in question were not devoid of any distinctive character.

10
It based some of its arguments on a number of documents produced by it, which are referred to in paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the contested judgment and which aimed to demonstrate that the marks in question are not devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. It produced, first of all, an expert’s report from Professor Stefan Lengyel on ‘the originality, creativity and distinctiveness of the torch shapes in question’, which seeks to demonstrate that each of those shapes possesses a distinctive character. Next, it argued that the shape of the torches for which registration is sought is internationally recognised as distinctive, as is demonstrated by numerous references to those torches in various books, by the fact that they are on display in several museums and by the fact that they have won international awards. Lastly, it submitted that the capacity of the marks in question to indicate the origin of the goods was evidenced by the fact that consumers sent counterfeits of the applicant’s originals to it for repair, even though they did not carry the ‘Mag Lite’ name, and that the counterfeiters often advertised their goods using the original design of the Mag Lite torch.

11
The Office essentially argued that the shapes in question are to be regarded as common and thus incapable of performing a trade mark’s function as an indication of origin.

12
The Court of First Instance held that the Second Board of Appeal of the Office had been right to conclude that the three-dimensional marks in question were devoid of any distinctive character, for the following reasons:

‘28
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 provides that “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character” are not to be registered.

29
A mark has distinctive character if it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for according to their origin.

30
A mark’s distinctiveness must be assessed, firstly, by reference to those goods and services and, secondly, by reference to the way in which the mark is perceived by a targeted public, which is constituted by the consumers of the goods or services.

32
It must further be observed that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, under which marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are to be refused registration, draws no distinction between different categories of mark. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to apply more stringent criteria or impose stricter requirements when assessing the distinctiveness of three-dimensional marks comprising the shape of the goods themselves, such as those sought in the present case, than are applied or imposed in the case of other categories of mark.

33
However, in order to assess a mark’s distinctiveness, it is necessary to take account of all relevant elements linked to the specific circumstances of the case. One such element is the fact that it cannot be excluded that the nature of the mark in respect of which registration is sought might influence the perception which the targeted public will have of the mark.

34
Under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, moreover, it is sufficient, in order to defeat the absolute ground for refusal, to demonstrate that the mark possesses a minimum degree of distinctiveness. It is therefore necessary to determine – in the context of an a priori examination and without reference to any actual use of the sign within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 – whether the claimed mark will enable the targeted public to distinguish the marked goods or services from those of other undertakings when they come to make a purchasing choice.

35
In assessing a mark’s distinctiveness, regard must be had to the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (Cases C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 26, and T-359/99 DKV v OHIM (Eurohealth) [2001] ECR II-1645, paragraph 27). The goods whose shape it has been sought to register as a mark – the present case involves five shapes of torch – are goods for general consumption, and the targeted public must therefore be considered to comprise all consumers.

36
For the purposes of determining whether the five torch shapes in respect of which trade mark registration is sought are capable of acting on the memory of the average consumer as indications of origin, that is to say, in such a way as to differentiate the goods and link them to a particular commercial source, it should first be noted that it is a feature of the shapes that they are cylindrical. A cylinder is a common shape for a torch. In four of the applications filed, the torches’ cylindrical shape opens out at the end where the bulb is, while the torch in the fifth application does not, being cylindrical all the way down. The marks in all the applications correspond to shapes commonly used by other torch manufacturers on the market. Rather than enabling the product to be differentiated and linked to a specific commercial source, therefore, the effect of the marks claimed is to give the consumer an indication as to the nature of the product.

37
Next, as regards the features relied on by the applicant in support of its contention that the shapes claimed as marks are inherently capable of distinguishing its goods from those of its competitors, such as their aesthetic qualities and their unusually original design, it is to be observed that such shapes appear, as a result of those features, as variants of a common torch shape rather than as shapes capable of differentiating the goods and indicating, on their own, a given commercial origin. The average consumer is accustomed to seeing shapes similar to those at issue here, in a wide variety of designs. The shapes in respect of which registration has been applied for are not distinguishable from the shapes of the same type of goods commonly found in the trade. It is therefore wrong to claim, as the applicant does, that the special features of the torch shapes in question such as, inter alia, their attractiveness, draw the average consumer’s attention to the goods’ commercial origin.

39
The possibility that the average consumer might have become accustomed to recognising the applicant’s goods by reference to their shape alone cannot render the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 inapplicable in this case. If that is how the marks claimed are perceived, that is something that can only be taken into account in the context of the application of Article 7(3) of the regulation, a provision not invoked by the applicant at any point in the proceedings. All the factors relied on by the applicant – referred to at paragraphs 17 to 19, 21 and 22 above – in order to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the marks claimed relate to the possibility of the torches in question having acquired distinctiveness following the use made of them, and cannot therefore be regarded as relevant for the purposes of assessing their inherent distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

40
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the three-dimensional marks applied for in the present case, as perceived by an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, are therefore not capable of differentiating the goods or of distinguishing them from those of a different commercial origin.

…’

13
The Court of First Instance accordingly dismissed the action brought by the appellant and ordered it to pay the costs.


The appeal

14
The appellant advances seven grounds of appeal and claims that the Court of Justice should:

set aside the contested judgment and hold that there are no absolute grounds for refusal within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 which preclude the marks in question being registered;

annul the disputed decision;

order the Office to pay the costs.

15
The Office requests the Court to dismiss the appeal and to order the appellant to pay the costs.

The first ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

16
By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that, in assessing the distinctiveness of the marks in question, the Court of First Instance failed to consider, as it was required to do, the overall impression given by each of them, but, at paragraph 36 of the contested judgment, adopted the wrong approach by separating the marks into their component parts, holding that ‘it is a feature of the shapes that they are cylindrical’ and that, in four of them, ‘the torches’ cylindrical shape opens out where the bulb is’. The Court of First Instance thereby contravened Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

17
The appellant, which has provided an extremely detailed description of the characteristics of the torches in question, argues that, if the Court of First Instance had considered the visual and aesthetic aspects which are specific to each of them when seen from an overall perspective, it would have been bound to hold that the marks in question are not devoid of any distinctive character.

18
The Office claims that it is, on the contrary, the appellant which, by its detailed descriptions of the torches, adopts the wrong approach by separating the shape into its component parts.

Findings of the Court

19
The distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 must be assessed by reference, first, to the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought and, secondly, to the perception of the relevant public. That means the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (see, to that effect, in relation to Article 3(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), which is identical to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, Case C-218/01 Henkel [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited there; see also Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P Henkel v OHIM [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited there).

20
As the Court has consistently held, the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details. Thus, in order to assess whether or not a trade mark has any distinctive character, the overall impression given by it must be considered (see, in relation to a word mark, Case C-104/00 P DKV v OHIM [2002] ECR I-7561, paragraph 24, and, in relation to a three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the goods themselves, Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 44).

21
The findings of the Court of First Instance at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the contested judgment do not seek to separate each of the marks in question into their component parts, but, on the contrary, to consider the overall impression given by the mark concerned. The appellant’s objection that the Court of First Instance failed to assess the distinctiveness of each mark, seen as a whole, is thus not well founded.

22
The first ground of appeal must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

The sixth ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

23
By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance contravened Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by applying criteria which are irrelevant to that regulation and are unduly strict as regards the assessment of the distinctiveness of the marks in question.

24
According to the appellant, as with word marks (Case C-383/99 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (‘Baby-dry’) [2001] ECR I-6251, paragraph 40), any perceptible difference in relation to goods in common use is sufficient to mean that the three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the goods for which registration is sought is not devoid of any distinctive character.

25
In those circumstances, since the Court of First Instance held at paragraph 37 of the contested judgment that the shapes in question appear ‘as variants of a common torch shape’, it ought to have held that the marks in question were not devoid of any distinctive character, as variants necessarily imply that the shape has been changed.

26
The Office accepts that it is not appropriate to apply more stringent criteria when assessing the distinctiveness of three-dimensional marks than in the case of other categories of mark. However, the Court of First Instance rightly pointed out at paragraph 33 of the contested judgment that the nature of the mark in respect of which registration is sought may influence the perception which the targeted public will have of the mark.

27
Consumers do not normally make any precise connection between the three-dimensional shape of a product and that product’s particular origin, but restrict themselves to perceiving that shape as having technical or aesthetic advantages, or even do not attach any special meaning to it at all. For consumers to perceive the actual shape of the product as a means of identifying its origin, it is not sufficient for it to differ in some way from all the other shapes of goods which are available on the market, but it must also have some striking ‘feature’ which attracts attention. For that reason, the shape of a product is, on any basis, devoid of a distinctive character where it is common to goods in the sector concerned and similar in kind to the usual shapes of those goods.

28
The Office is of the view that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the criteria referred to above to the marks which the appellant had sought to register.

Findings of the Court

29
For a trade mark to possess distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, it must serve to identify the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for as originating from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish the goods or services from those of other undertakings (see Henkel v OHIM, paragaph 34 and the case-law cited there).

30
The criteria for assessing the distinctive character of three-dimensional marks consisting of the shape of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark. None the less, for the purpose of applying those criteria, the relevant public's perception is not necessarily the same in the case of a three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of the product itself as it is in the case of a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent from the appearance of the products it denotes. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark (see Henkel v OHIM, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited there).

31
In those circumstances, the more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. Only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin, is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of that provision (see, to that effect, Henkel v OHIM, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited there).

32
Therefore, contrary to what the appellant submits, where a three-dimensional mark is constituted by the shape of the product for which registration is sought, the mere fact that that shape is a ‘variant’ of a common shape of that type of product is not sufficient to establish that the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. It must always be determined whether such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention.

33
The appellant has thus failed to establish that the Court of First Instance applied irrelevant and unduly strict criteria in deciding that the three-dimensional marks in question are devoid of any distinctive character.

34
The sixth ground of appeal must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

The seventh ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

35
By its seventh ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance contravened Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by relying, at paragraph 37 of the contested judgment, on the statement that ‘the average consumer is accustomed to seeing shapes similar to those at issue here, in a wide variety of designs’, so as to hold that the marks in question were devoid of any distinctive character.

36
According to the appellant, even if that statement were correct, two opposing conclusions may be drawn from it as to the perception of marks by consumers. Either, consumers may fail to recognise the shape as an indication of origin, because they are, generally speaking, ‘accustomed to seeing those shapes’. But, according to the appellant, that conclusion must be rejected, as, by incorporating in Regulation No 40/94 a category of marks constituted by the shape of the product, the Community legislature took the view that the shape of the product is an indication of its origin. Alternatively, the wide variety of designs in fact leads consumers to notice the shape of products and accordingly the variations which may arise in the design of products of different origins. According to the appellant, it is the latter conclusion which is correct, as it is clear that consumers do recognise shapes. The reasoning of the Court of First Instance at paragraph 37 of the contested judgment is thus inherently contradictory.

Findings of the Court

37
First, it does not follow in any way from paragraph 37 of the contested judgment that the Court of First Instance took the view that consumers will, as a matter of principle, fail to recognise the shape of goods as an indication of their origin.

38
Secondly, as regards the appellant’s argument that the wide variety of designs in fact leads consumers to notice the shape of the goods and thus the variations that may arise in the design of goods of different origins, that argument seeks in reality to have this Court substitute its own appraisal of the facts for that of the Court of First Instance set out at paragraph 37 of the contested judgment.

39
As is clear from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on a point of law only. The Court of First Instance thus has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus does not, save where they distort the evidence, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (see, to that effect, DKV v OHIM, paragraph 22, and Case C-194/99 P Thyssen Stahl v Commission [2003] ECR I-10821, paragraph 20).

40
As distortion by the Court of First Instance of the facts or evidence put before it has not been alleged in this ground of appeal, the latter must be rejected as inadmissible.

The fourth ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

41
By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance contravened Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in failing to take account, when assessing the distinctive character of the marks in question, of the way in which consumers actually perceive them.

42
According to the appellant, as the Court of First Instance itself stated at paragraph 33 of the contested judgment, in order to assess a mark’s distinctiveness, it is necessary to take account of all relevant elements linked to the specific circumstances of the case. However, in a manner which was blatantly inconsistent with that statement, the Court of First Instance wrongly restricted itself, at paragraphs 34 and 39 of the contested judgment, to an a priori assessment, without any reference to the use of the mark, by failing to have regard to the evidence relating to the perception by the public of the marks in question following their use.

43
There are purely legal considerations which justify taking into account the actual perception which the public has of a mark in order to assess its distinctiveness ab initio. First of all, according to the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation No 40/94, the function of the protection afforded by a Community trade mark is to guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin; the only way in which it can be established with certainty whether the role of the mark as an indication of origin is guaranteed is to rely on the actual perception of the mark by the relevant public. Next, it follows from the wording itself of Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 – and particularly from the use of the words ‘in trade’ in Article 7(1)(c) and ‘the public’ in Article 7(1)(g) – that each of the absolute grounds for refusal referred to in Article 7(1) must be considered in the light of the opinion of the relevant public. Lastly, that interpretation has been confirmed on a number of occasions by the Court of Justice (Baby-dry, paragraph 42) and by the Court of First Instance (Case T-135/99 Taurus-Film v OHIM(Cine Action) [2001] ECR II‑379, paragraph 27, and Case T-331/99 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v OHIM (Giroform) [2001] ECR II-433, paragraph 24), and it is also the interpretation which has been adopted by the German courts.

44
The Office is of the opinion that the Court of First Instance was right to assess the distinctiveness of the marks in question, registration of which was applied for under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, in the context of an a priori consideration and without reference to any actual use made of the sign. Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, which relates to distinctiveness in consequence of use, would be rendered redundant if an assessment of the distinctiveness of a mark ab initio required that factors linked to its use be brought into account.

45
It is not disputed that the appellant has not invoked the use made of its mark for the purpose of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance was accordingly right to consider the distinctiveness of the marks in question from the point of view of a consumer who is accustomed to the shapes of torches that are on the market and is faced for the first time with the torches in question.

Findings of the Court

46
As was noted at paragraph 29 of this judgment, for a trade mark to possess distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, it must serve to identify the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for as originating from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish the goods or services from those of other undertakings.

47
If a mark does not ab initio have distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, Article 7(3) provides that it may acquire such character in relation to the goods or services claimed in consequence of the use which has been made of it. That distinctive character may be acquired, inter alia, after the normal process of familiarising the relevant public has taken place (see Case C-104/01 Libertel [2003] ECR I-3793, paragraph 67).

48
In order to assess whether or not a mark is devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the Office, or, where a challenge is brought, the Court of First Instance, must have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances (see, in relation to Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104, Case C-363/99 Koninklijke KPN Nederland [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 35).

49
In that regard, even if, as was pointed out at paragraph 19 of this judgment, that assessment must be carried out in relation to the presumed expectations of an average consumer of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the possibility remains that evidence based on the actual perception of the mark by consumers may, in certain cases, provide guidance to the Office or, where a challenge is brought, the Court of First Instance.

50
However, in order to contribute to the assessment of the distinctiveness of a mark for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, that evidence must show that consumers did not need to become accustomed to the mark through the use made of it, but that it immediately enabled them to distinguish the goods or services bearing the mark from the goods or services of competing undertakings. As the Office rightly argues, Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 would be redundant if a mark fell to be registered in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) by reason of its having become distinctive in consequence of the use made of it.

51
The evidence relating to the actual perception of the marks in question by consumers which the appellant has produced is summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment. It seeks to demonstrate that consumers were of the opinion that copies of the torches marketed by the appellant originated with it and that competitors recommended their products by saying that they were of the same design as the appellant’s torches.

52
Contrary to what is submitted by the appellant, the Court of First Instance did not refuse in any way to consider that evidence.

53
First, in stating at paragraph 34 of the contested judgment that it is necessary to determine whether the marks in question would enable the targeted public to distinguish the goods or services bearing the mark from those of other undertakings ‘in the context of an a priori examination and without reference to any actual use of the sign within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94’, the Court of First Instance merely stated that it would not determine whether the marks in question had succeeded in becoming distinctive within the meaning of that provision, thereby giving effect to the fact that the appellant had not invoked it at any point in the proceedings.

54
Secondly, paragraph 39 of the contested judgment shows that the Court of First Instance considered the evidence summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, but rejected it as not permitting the distinctive character of the marks in question to be established for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

55
In that regard, it must be held that that evidence relates to the perception of the marks in question by consumers at a time when the torches in question had already been on the market for many years and when consumers were thus accustomed to their shape. Moreover, the appellant has itself accepted in its application that that evidence ‘could also relate to the fact that the relevant public has associated the shape of the torches with the appellant … by reason in particular of their use in trade’.

56
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance was entitled, at paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, to hold, without distorting the evidence summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, that that evidence failed to show that the marks in question had distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, and that it was only capable of establishing that those marks could become distinctive in consequence of the use made of them for the purposes of Article 7(3) of that regulation.

57
The fourth ground of appeal must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

The second ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

58
By its second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that, at paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance distorted the evidence referred to at paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the contested judgment which the appellant produced in support of its application, by holding, quite illogically, that the evidence related only to distinctiveness acquired through use for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, with the result that the Court of First Instance left it out of account.

59
According to the appellant, that evidence relates wholly or mainly to the distinctive character, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, ab initio of the marks in question.

60
The Office argues that the Court of First Instance summarised, at paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, all the evidence relied on by the appellant, and subsequently, at paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, considered the significance of that evidence in relation to the substance of the case. According to the Office, the Court of First Instance rightly, and without infringing the general rules of logic, held that the facts relied on by the appellant might have had a role to play as part of an analysis based on Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, but not on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation.

Findings of the Court

61
As regards, first, the evidence summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance could, for the reasons given at paragraphs 55 and 56 of this judgment, hold, without distorting that evidence, that it was only capable of establishing that the marks in question might have become distinctive in consequence of the use which had been made of them.

62
As regards, secondly, the evidence summarised at paragraphs 18 and 19 of the contested judgment, that evidence seeks to establish that, in view of the functional and aesthetic qualities of the shapes of the torches in question and their atypical design, they possess distinctive character.

63
Contrary to what the appellant claims, the Court of First Instance did not refuse to take that evidence into account in any way.

64
Paragraph 37 of the contested judgment makes it clear that the Court of First Instance considered the appellant’s arguments based on the aesthetic qualities and the design of the torches in question, but that the result of its analysis was that it took the view that those characteristics were not sufficient to confer on the marks in question distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

65
Moreover, at paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance merely noted that the evidence intended to show the excellence of the design of those torches and their aesthetic and functional qualities did not show that the marks in question possessed distinctive character ab initio, but was capable only of demonstrating that they might become distinctive in consequence of the use made of them.

66
Contrary to what the appellant submits, the Court of First Instance did not distort that evidence in any way.

67
As regards the expert evidence produced by the appellant, the Court of First Instance was not bound to agree with the expert’s opinion and was entitled to undertake its own appraisal of the distinctiveness of the marks in question.

68
Similarly, as regards the recognition which, according to the appellant, the design of the torches in question enjoys internationally, it must be held that the fact that goods benefit from a high quality of design does not necessarily mean that a mark consisting of the three-dimensional shape of those goods enables ab initio those goods to be distinguished from those of other undertakings for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

69
In those circumstances, the second ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.

The third ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

70
By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed its right to be heard under the combined provisions of Article 6(2) EU, Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the first indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1).

71
First, the Court of First Instance was wrong to dismiss the evidence already referred to in relation to the second ground of appeal. The appellant criticises the Court of First Instance for rejecting its proposal that the author of the expert’s report be heard as an ‘expert witness’.

72
Secondly, the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the evidence produced by the appellant which, according to it, shows both that other manufacturers use a very wide variety of torch shapes and also that the marks in question can clearly be distinguished from all those shapes. The Court of First Instance held, without having any reason for doing so, that the shape of the torches in question was commonly used by other manufacturers.

73
The Office argues that, by its third ground of appeal, the appellant is truly seeking to challenge the appraisal of the facts carried out by the Court of First Instance.

74
As regards the fact that the Court of First Instance did not wish to hear the author of the expert’s report produced by the appellant, that decision did not amount to a breach of the rules of procedure, as it is for that Court alone to decide whether a hearing of a witness or expert evidence are necessary.

Findings of the Court

75
First, in so far as it criticises the Court of First Instance for failing to take into account the evidence summarised at paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, the third ground of appeal is indissociable from the second ground and must therefore be rejected for the same reasons.

76
Next, as regards the criticism of the Court of First Instance for not wishing to hear the author of the expert’s report produced by the appellant, as the latter proposed, it must be pointed out that the Court of First Instance is the sole judge of any need for the information available to it concerning the cases before it to be supplemented. Whether or not the evidence before it is sufficient is a matter to be appraised by it alone and, as already noted at paragraph 39 of this judgment, is not subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal, except where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted or the substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance’s findings is apparent from the documents in the case-file (Case C‑315/99 P Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281, paragraph 19, and Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P Glencore and Compagnie Continentale v Commission [2002] ECR I-10119, paragraphs 77 and 78).

77
In the present case, the Court of First Instance was entitled, after having considered the whole of the facts and evidence before it, to hold that the hearing as a witness of the author of an expert’s report already produced in the proceedings was not necessary for the purposes of its appraisal of the distinctive character of the marks in question, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance accordingly did not infringe the right of the appellant to be heard by failing to order that the expert be led as a witness.

78
Lastly, inasmuch as the appellant criticises the Court of First Instance for failing to take account of the other evidence produced by it which, it claims, shows both that other manufacturers use a very wide variety of torch shapes and that the marks in question can clearly be distinguished from all those shapes, the third ground of appeal challenges in effect an appraisal of the facts. Accordingly, for the reason given in paragraph 39 of this judgment, and in the absence of any evidence of distortion of the facts or evidence, that ground of appeal is manifestly inadmissible in an appeal.

79
The third ground of appeal must accordingly be rejected as being partly unfounded and partly inadmissible.

The fifth ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

80
By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the Court of Fist Instance contravened Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by basing its reasoning only on general propositions which are unsupported by any evidence, so as to hold that the marks which are the subject of the application for registration are devoid of any distinctive character.

81
According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance held at paragraphs 33, 36 and 37 of the contested judgment that the shapes in question are common and that the average consumer is accustomed to them, that those shapes are commonly found in trade and that the nature of the marks might influence the perception which the targeted public will have of them, without basing those findings on any factual evidence.

82
The Office claims that, as regards the question which torches should be considered to be common or coming naturally to mind, adequate findings had already been made by the Second Board of Appeal, particularly in the light of the series of representations of other shapes of torch produced by the appellant. It adds that, as the members of the Court of First Instance are themselves consumers for whom torches are familiar objects, they were in a position to assess on the basis of their own knowledge which shapes of torch are ‘normal’ and common.

Findings of the Court

83
First, as was pointed out at paragraph 30 of this judgment, average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark.

84
The Court of First Instance was accordingly right to point out, at paragraph 33 of the contested judgment, that the nature of the mark in respect of which registration is sought might influence the perception which the relevant public will have of the mark.

85
In so far as it criticises the Court of First Instance for making a finding of that kind, the fifth ground of appeal is unfounded.

86
Secondly, contrary to what the appellant submits, the Court of First Instance did not, at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the contested judgment, reach conclusions that were unsupported by evidence, but carried out an appraisal of the evidence, based in particular on the consideration of the torches in question, which were produced before it.

87
The Court of First Instance thus reached the conclusion that the shapes of those torches are devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

88
As was pointed out at paragraph 39 of this judgment, the appraisal of the facts does not, save where the facts or evidence submitted to the Court of First Instance have been distorted, which this ground of appeal does not allege, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

89
In those circumstances, the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as being partly unfounded and partly inadmissible, as, accordingly, must be the whole of the appeal.


Costs

90
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 of those Rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Office has applied for costs against the appellant, and the latter’s appeal has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

1.
Dismisses the appeal;

2.
Orders Mag Instrument Inc. to pay the costs.

Signatures.


1
Language of the case: German.

Top