Il marchio <Cultcamper> (nome + figura del muso del noto camper van di volkswagen, poi: VW) viola quello 3D di vw COSTITUITO DALAa riproduizione appunto in cinque posiozini 3D del noto camper van (si v. le riproduzionui de imarchji nella testo della decisione).
L’appello amministrativo presso l’EUIPO con decisione 15.12.2021, caso R 609/2021-2 , riformando la decisione di primo grado e pur rigettando la domanda di rinomanza, ritiene da un lato il segno anteriore in 3D sufficientemente distintivo e dall’altro il segno posteriore <Cultcamper> fonte di possibile confusione:
<<38 As a result, the opponent can only rely on the inherent distinctiveness of its earlier marks. As already observed, the earlier marks have an inherently average degree of distinctive character.
39 Considering the above, and in particular the average distinctive character of the earlier marks, the co–dominance of the figurative element in the contested sign, the visual and conceptual similarity of the signs, the identity and similarity of the goods and services, applying the interdependence principle, the Board finds that, faced with the image of the mark applied for, the relevant English–speaking public in the EU will perceive that mark as another version of the earlier marks, rather than as a separate trade mark with a different commercial origin. It follows that there is a likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association, on the part of at least the relevant English–speaking public in the EU, whose degree of attention is average to high.
40 Even for a public with a high level of attentiveness, the fact remains that the average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks but must place his or her trust in the imperfect picture of them that he or she has kept in his or her mind (16/07/2014, T–324/13, Femivia, EU:T:2014:672, § 48 and the case–law cited therein; 15/10/2008, T–305/06 – T–307/06, Ferromix, Inomix, Alumix, EU:T:2008:444, § 63).
41 In light of the above, the appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled in its entirety, the opposition is upheld and the contested trade mark application is rejected in its entirety>>
DA notare l’uguale rilevanza assegnata alle componenti denominativa e figurativa nel marchio posteriore, contrariamente ad un largo orientamento (ricordato in decisione) per cui in tali casi è di maggior impatto nel pubblico quella denominativa.
(notizia e link tratti dal blog IPKat).