– I –
La divisione di opposizione dell’EUIPO decide l’opposizione N° B 3 172 678 in data 8 agosto 2023 (qui la pagina del fascicolo e qui link diretto al testo) relativa al confronto tra marchi figurativi.
(segnalazione di Marcel Pemsel su IPKat)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilcVLP_kk40-WzvxfGpatxgcouf5snaId6vOpGoEJoP0gq9t_uJzwuCD54TG14zu1vnmsR98_GlUufe9Abrfcfy5XNOplGq4LO01x8dXt0jYgzKnqU5-TWwWgiRvHtbUkrGhoUnC3Gj2K-EvPkZ_rvxGo-srb-tb548UNBRdUNIH0TP7xm1z7l/s200/AF1.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQWJmo7lj-DNYq6jDeSpRlQO95LRma2M3P4VlwSVdqLk35YOeio-9mRqgQkuMxLLGTnrq3MYJOMkQH7ZfCnGkofPQO10brXvvG1Ajwqld5SMXr33x4YIkiBUUKVUAPO4lTIn43ayyOhrgym7frMUHc2PqpB8579P7y7Yq7zA4GPnGT_4wAQVwv/s300/AF2.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSaJGy8ODUE8tjEgjhaHckpoZn43V2ONEkVHoLTZ4NNLNoo3ufx4UHz0W8h7yMBdOZqw9KvuDhy0xYnhtzXwGYG9r8W_nS8JbTbZJPVhh0nn5qnhfKdT-ImUSDCqP8PhR225dPUnBY1LCZdPuksKn92P4F475LDs4BEhVUDhRYSdOS6HS16Lk5/s300/AF3.jpg)
L’opposizione è parzialmnente (sotto il profilo merceologico) accolta.
<< e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
Likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case; this appreciation depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the degree of recognition of the mark on the market, the association that the public might make between the two marks and the degree of similarity between the signs and the goods/services (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
A likelihood of confusion (including a likelihood of association) exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods/services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings.
The Opposition Division has assumed in section d) of this decision that the earlier marks have been extensively used and enjoy an enhanced scope of protection. The examination of likelihood of confusion will, therefore, proceed on the premise that the earlier marks have an enhanced degree of distinctiveness. Indeed, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, and, therefore, marks with a highly distinctive character because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).
The goods and services are assumed to be identical or similar to a high degree and they target the general and professional publics. The degree of attention varies from average to high.
The similarities between the signs arise from the depiction of a bird in all the signs, which leads to a low degree of visual similarity and at least an average degree of conceptual similarity (if not identity), while the signs are aurally not comparable, as concluded above. However, the signs differ considerably in the particular ways the common elements are depicted, such as their orientations and different shapes of wings, different circular and/or semi-circular shapes and, in particular, the additional verbal elements of the contested sign, which have no counterparts in the earlier marks. The aforesaid differences are particularly relevant when assessing the likelihood of confusion and all these differences will lead to a rather distinct overall impression created by the signs. Even though both parties have used the same concept of a silhouette of a bird in their signs, this itself is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion or association, since the differentiating elements are clearly perceivable and sufficiently outweigh the similarities of a depiction of a figurative bird.
The opponent cannot rely on the protection of the depiction of a type of animal, or its part, per se. In the case of two purely figurative signs (or, by analogy a purely figurative sign versus a figurative sign containing a figurative component, as in the present case), which depict a certain type of animal, or a part of it, the owner of an earlier mark can only preclude registration of a contested sign if the figurative depiction itself shows significant similarities to the latter sign (18/04/2018, R 1547/2017-2, DEVICE OF A BLACK BIRD (fig.) / RABE et al., § 35; 28/05/2009, R 1841/2007-1, Form eines Mammuts / ELEPHANT WORLD-TOURS et al., (fig.), § 56). However, the similarities of the figurative elements in the present case are not considered significant, while important differences between the signs are introduced by the verbal elements of the contested sign, as mentioned above, which have the strongest impact in that sign.
Consequently, in the Opposition Division’s point of view, even if there is a conceptual link between the signs, on account of the coinciding concept conveyed by the figurative element of a silhouette of a bird, the considerable visual differences between the signs, as described above, are sufficient to prevent any likelihood of confusion, especially bearing in mind that the relevant public displays an average to high level of attention. Consequently, the fact that the signs contain a depiction of a silhouette of a bird is not sufficient in itself to lead to a finding of likelihood of confusion. The Opposition Division considers that the consumers will be able to safely distinguish between the signs.
Considering all the above, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected insofar as it is based on Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
The opponent has also based its opposition on the following earlier trade mark:
international trade mark registration designating the European Union No 1 457 089 (figurative mark).
This earlier mark invoked by the opponent is less similar to the contested mark. This is because it contains additional figurative components, namely a circle and some figurative lines, which overall give an impression of a simplified depiction of the Sun. These additional elements further differentiate between the signs visually and they also introduce an additional differing concept, which is not present in the earlier trade marks compared above. Therefore, the outcome cannot be different with respect to the goods for which the opposition has already been rejected; no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to those goods>>.
C’è pure un interessante esame dell’opposizione basata sulla rinomanza, p. 10 ss , anche essa accolta parzialmente.
Si sta diffondendo la prassi di cercare di sfruttare la notorietà altrui rovesciando la direzione di un’immagine rinomata (e qui pure aggiungendovi un nome): tentativo per ora rischioso .
– II –
In pari data 8 agosto la stessa Divisione di Opposizione nella OPPOSITION Nо B 3 123 557 Jaguar Land Rover Limited v.Puma Energy International SA ha dato esito quasi opposto (o semplicemente diverso) al conflitto tra questi due segni per prodotti uguali:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPDx0_d1pN_LnTVA2-sUMZqNWtFSOh7P6-laHr6t_O7sFd210wMWMhfxYe5evTZ3Q_SsFp86t-NyuXMU9pZ6vX1r5-c78s-G6cyCIvOmm6ePeXLCZpBGAw5UwN-p4Kq0PmCHAWl8pR64ozlJq_PvTxeMXReXUdzw6AQVcSw8ap1dUYLAp3oa6U/s300/Jaguar1.jpg)
e
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht7dABPOlxZTMz1m9tTRXaKqLBhYEDI-pV_lnYlckVdPeWMJ1uELyItRDe7SaFCsIzEFORoFxQI-tQ9K-p327I3WXy0YLsjc3elBUQkjh5mxyGrBhZnGKfq9oXRx6a6L4fUZZy5koKppdIk57Qro9265f4pXfj57XR7w-Y-3XrdeMKgtYiJ9Xf/s300/Jaguar2.jpg)
Le differenze però sono qui maggiori: spt. direi nel primo il felino sta saltando, mentre nel secondo sta correndo e poi i colori sono invertiti.
<<In making the visual comparison of two marks depicting an animal, the Opposition Division must take care not to apportion excessive weight to a coincidence in features that are merely generic to this part of the animal body (e.g. legs, tails), since these traits, which are common to felines, differ significantly in the details of the marks under comparison (13/07/2017, R 110/2017 2, DEVICE OF A FLYING BIRD (fig.) / DEVICE OF A FLYING BIRD (fig.) et al., § 61; 29/07/2020, R 2901/2019 5, DEVICE OF A SHEEP (fig.) / DEVICE OF A RAM (fig.), § 30). Indeed, these two depictions of a feline show some significant differences. This is caused predominantly by the fact that the depiction of a feline in the contested sign is very simplified and the morphologic features of felines are not clearly, immediately and effortlessly visible. Instead, that sign consists merely of a feline’s contour and requires some mental effort in order to recognise and identify a feline. This contrasts sharply with the depiction of a feline in the earlier mark, which is less streamlined and more detailed/elaborate, and contains more clearly identifiable morphologic features of a feline than the contested sign, such as details of its head, ears, eyes, etc.
In this regard, consumers are capable of perceiving differences between the stylisation of signs. The key point is how the signs at issue are normally perceived overall and not how the stylistic differences between them may be perceived in the event that a particularly meticulous consumer is in a position to examine the graphic stylisation and draw comparisons between them (20/07/2017, T 521/15, D (fig.) / D (fig.) et al., EU:T:2017:536, § 49)>>
La risposta è di dubbia esattezza: il consumatore ricorda ad un livello di astrattezza maggiore , almeno per i beni di largo consumo
(anche qui segnalazione di Marcel Pemsel su IPKat che correttamente solleva il problema del grado di astratezza con cui ricorda il consumatore)