Castellani SpA v. Internal Market Coordination Office [Trademarks and Designs] [OHIM] [Case T-149/06] [2007] deals with the opposition of the European Community trademark. On September 25, 2001, the applicant filed an application for registration of a Community trademark. The application was filed with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market [Trademarks and Designs] [OHIM] and forwarded in accordance with Council Regulation [EC] No 40/94 [on the Community Trademark].
Applicable graphic mark ' CASTELLANI' registration. On September 4, 2002, a company named Markant submitted a notice of opposition to trademark registration on the grounds of earlier registration. The company has registered the term "CASTELLUCA".
The objection refers to all the goods covered by the previous registration and for all registered goods - due to the similarities between the early trademarks and the purchased trademarks, the public may be confused. And the goods in question.
The OHIM opposition department rejected the opposition of its entity.
Once the trademark is considered, it is decided that the applied trademark and the earlier trademark are visually and phonologically different. In addition, the relevant public does not consider any conceptual similarities between the disputed trademarks.
The opponent has an opposition to this decision. OHIM's First Appeals Board abolished the opposition's decision and rejected the registration application and found confusion between the trademark and CASTELLANI'. And early trademarks ' CASTELLUCA'. However, the applicable appeal states that the Court of First Instance should repeal the disputed decision. The applicant challenged an infringement of section 8[1][b] of Regulation 40/94.
The court held that, in the overall assessment of the trademark in question, although the nature of the goods covered was the same, the visual, phonological and conceptual differences between the contradictory symbols were insufficient to rule out similarities between them. Thereby creating a possibility. The confusion of ordinary German consumers.
If it is determined that the possibility of confusion must be assessed on a global scale. Such assessments must be based on the relevant public perception of the logo and related goods or services. In addition, the assessment must take into account all factors related to the circumstances of the case, in particular the similarities between the emblems and the interdependence between the goods and/or services designed.
For the visual, auditory or conceptual similarity of the signs involved, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression given by the logo, taking into account its unique and major components.
In this case, the court found it obvious that the graphic elements of the trademark would be considered an example of the castle. In the overall visual assessment of the symbol, a difference is established between the word elements of "CASTELLANI". And ' CASTELLUCA' is enough to exclude any visual similarity between the competitiveness signs.
Regarding speech comparison, due to the difference between the suffixes, the differences between the symbols are sufficient to make them audibly distinguishable in German because the prefixes are the same.
Regarding the concept comparison, the court held that ordinary German consumers illegally linked the two trademarks to the word "Castel", so the competition signs were conceptually similar. However, the court also believes that ordinary German consumers are accustomed to seeing a large number of wine trademarks whose names have the prefix "castel' which means that ordinary consumers will attach less importance to the prefix and carefully check the suffix. .
Therefore, the court ruled that there was a conceptual difference between the two signs. As a result, the single request filed by the applicant must be maintained and the disputed decision is abolished.
©RT COOPERS, 2007. This briefing does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issue in question, nor does it provide legal advice. It is only used to highlight general issues. Expert legal advice should always be provided for specific situations.
Orignal From: Intellectual Property Law - European Trademarks - Objections to Trademark Registration
No comments:
Post a Comment