Lite sui marchi evocanti l’Oktoberfest, decisa dal Board of Appeal EUIPO 11.12.2024, caso 1264/2024-2, FCRB IMPEX SRL v. ANDESHAUPTSTADT MÜNCHEN, correttamente decisa in base alla debolezza dell’anteriorità.
Marchi in lite:
La opposition e il Board of appeal escludono il riscjhio di confuisione.
La parte finale della seconda:
<<54 A global assessment of a likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular, the similarity between the trade marks and between the goods or services. Accordingly, a greater degree of similarity between the goods/services may be offset by a lower degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 20; 11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24; 29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).
55 As a preliminary point, in accordance with the principle of the interdependence between the factors to be taken into consideration when examining the likelihood of confusion, it must be noted that the ratio legis of trade mark law is to strike a balance between the interest that the proprietor of a trade mark has in safeguarding its essential function, on the one hand, and the interests of other economic operators in having signs capable of denoting their products and services, on the other (18/01/2023, T-443/21, YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL (fig.) / yoga ALLIANCE (fig.), EU:T:2023:7, § 117 and the case-law cited).
56 It follows that excessive protection of marks consisting of elements that, as in the present case, have very weak distinctive character, if any, in relation to the goods or services at issue, could adversely affect the attainment of the objectives pursued by trade mark law, if, in the context of the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the mere presence of such elements in the signs at issue led to a finding of a likelihood of confusion without taking into account the remainder of the specific factors in the present case (18/01/2023, T-443/21, YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL (fig.) / yoga ALLIANCE (fig.), EU:T:2023:7, § 118).
57 In that regard, where the earlier trade mark and the sign whose registration is sought coincide in an element that has a weak distinctive character with regard to the goods and services at issue, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR does not often lead to a finding that such likelihood exists (12/05/2021, T-70/20, MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS (fig.) / MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS (fig.), EU:T:2021:253, § 119 and the case-law cited).
58 In the present case, taking into account the above comparison of the signs and in particular the existence of the very weak common element ‘OKTOBER()FEST’ in both signs, the differences in the overall impression of the signs, especially the visually more striking and distinctive figurative element of the earlier mark (‘a flying beer mug’) and the figurative element in the contested sign, insofar as it will be seen as abstract, are such that the relevant public with an average level of attention will be able to make a clear distinction between the marks at issue. This applies notwithstanding the identity of the services at issue and the imperfect recollection of the public.
59 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the Opposition Division correctly concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public as regards the fact that the services may come from the same or economically linked undertakings.
60 Therefore, the appeal is dismissed>>
(notizia di Marcel Pemsel in IPKat, da cui il link ai marchi)