<<The three relevant screenshots produced by Plaintiff show clear labeling of Defendants’ entry, using Defendants’ name and prominently labelled as an “Ad,” and with no use of Plaintiff’s trademark or confusingly similar language or content.
Reasonably savvy Internet users with a strong incentive to select the right lawyer would not be confused by these clearly labeled ads into believing that Defendants were Plaintiff.
Plaintiff produces no survey evidence showing a likelihood of confusion, and its evidence that, at most, 0.215% of all consumers exposed to Defendants’ ads were in fact confused by them is simply not enough to show a likelihood. Two-tenths of one percent is not an appreciable or significant portion of consumers exposed to Defendants’ keyword-generated ads. Plaintiff does have a strong mark, but no reasonable jury viewing Plaintiff’s thin evidence could find that potential clients viewing Defendants’ clearly labeled ads are likely to be confused into thinking Defendants were in fact Plaintiff.
The 25 irrelevant screenshots produced by Plaintiff – screenshots taken during a time when Defendants’ were not buying Plaintiff’s name as a keyword – reinforce the Court’s conclusion. Each of the irrelevant screenshots was produced by searching for “lerner & rowe,” “lerner rowe,” or a variation of these words. Doc. 68-3.
And even though Defendants had not purchased Plaintiff’s name as a keyword, Defendants’ ads appeared in the search results along with ads for other personal injury law firms.
Google’s algorithm apparently called up similar law firms when a specific law firm was searched for. See, e.g., Doc. 57-6 at 15 (including an ad for azinjuredworker.com), 17 (getlawyersnow.com and palumbowolfe.com), 18 (arjashahlaw.com), 20 (getlawyersnow.com), 22 (hutzler law.com), 28 (larryhparkerphoenix.com). These screenshots show what Internet users find when searching on Google for Lerner & Rowe – ads for a variety of law firms.
As with all searches on Google, the consumer then must scroll through the returns to decide which entries are worth clicking on.
Because Defendants’ entries use their name and are clearly labeled “Ad,” the consumers would know they are seeing an ad for another law firm, as would be true with the other firms seen in the screenshots. The Internet user would then, as the Ninth Circuit has recognized, “skip from site to site, ready to hit the back button whenever they’re not satisfied with a site’s contents.” Toyota Motor Sales, 610 F.3d at 1179. This is not confusion; this is typical Internet searching. And because “the owner of the mark must demonstrate likely confusion, not mere diversion,” Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. Network Automation, 638 F.3d at 1149>>, P. 19-20.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)
In particolare non c’è somiglianza visuale, §§ 40 ss.
<< 45 In the present case, it must be stated that the signs at issue share certain features, that is, a central element which includes, inter alia, an open smiling mouth showing teeth, large eyes, a top hat, two arms wearing gloves and two legs wearing shoes. In addition, they are represented in the same colours – white, grey and black.
46 Nevertheless, it must be stated, similarly to EUIPO, that the features mentioned in paragraph 45 above are represented differently in each of the signs. The central element of the sign applied for is an anthropomorphic sphere, while that of the earlier mark is an ovoid. Moreover, aside from the open mouth, the features of the central element of each of the signs are not the same. While the sign applied for contains two wide-open eyes and eyebrows, the earlier sign has a single eye and does not have visible eyebrows. The hats situated over the central elements of the signs at issue are also distinct. Whereas the hat in the sign applied for is of average size, tipped to the left and contains an uppercase ‘b’, the hat in the earlier sign is large, tipped to the right, contains an ‘s’ or dollar sign and some banknotes. Differences can also be established in the position of the arms and proportion of the legs in relation to the central element of each of the signs at issue. Although the sign applied for is represented with straight arms and shorter legs in relation to the central element, the earlier sign is made up of one bent arm and another arm resting on a cane, and legs of the same length as the central element.
47 In the light of those assessments, the Court finds that the overall impression produced by the signs at issue is so different that the relevant public will not establish a link between those signs on the ground that they share certain features and the same colours. They are two fantasy figures stylised differently, that is, on the one hand, a happy figure in the shape of a ball with wide-open eyes, straight arms and short legs and, on the other hand, a figure in the shape of a one-eyed, slightly deformed face with one bent arm and another arm resting on a cane, and legs of the same length as the central element.
48 Contrary to the applicant’s claim, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal only described the signs at issue before carrying out a visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the signs. The visual comparison of those signs was carried out in paragraph 17 of that decision, in which the Board of Appeal specified that that the signs at issue shared a central part resembling an imaginary face with two legs, two arms and a hat, but that the overall impression given by those signs was very different. Consequently, the applicant’s arguments relating to the fact that paragraphs 15 and 16 of the contested decision take account of certain features or details of the signs at issue must be rejected.
49 The same applies to the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal found that the overall impression given by the signs at issue was very different, although it had specified that those signs shared their most relevant aspects, which drew the attention of the relevant public. In that connection, it is sufficient to note that, as is apparent from paragraph 17 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal merely observed that, despite the fact that the signs at issue shared certain features, their overall impression was very different. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal did not in any way find that the signs at issue shared the most relevant aspects which drew the attention of the relevant public.
50 Regarding the applicant’s argument that, in essence, the features shared by the signs at issue concern the central element and are the most relevant elements, creating a first impression of the signs at issue without engaging in an analysis of their details, and that those signs are represented in the same colours, it must be observed that, as is apparent from paragraphs 46 and 47 above, those features are represented differently, thereby creating a different overall impression given by the signs at issue. Accordingly, even if the consumer does not memorise details, he or she will be able to identify the differences between the signs and, to that extent, will not establish a link between the marks at issue.
51 Regarding the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal failed to take account of the arguments in paragraphs 14 to 19 of the application, directed against the decision of the Opposition Division, it should be borne in mind that the Board of Appeal cannot be required to provide an account that follows exhaustively and one by one all the lines of reasoning articulated by the parties before it; the reasoning may therefore be implicit, on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know the reasons for the Board of Appeal’s decision and provides the competent Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 July 2008, Reber v OHIM – Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Mozart), T‑304/06, EU:T:2008:268, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). It is apparent from paragraphs 21 to 26 of the application that the applicant was able to understand the reasons for the Board of Appeal’s finding that the signs at issue were not similar visually.
52 Therefore, the Court finds that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment when it observed that the signs at issue were different visually>>.
1) in the present case, the earlier word mark, consisting of the element ‘thermrad’, and the dominant word element of the mark applied for, ‘termorad’, are of the same length, both being formed of eight letters. They thus overlap in so far as they contain the sequence of the letter ‘t’ followed by the string of letters ‘erm’ and ‘rad’. However, those signs are differentiated by the letters ‘h’ and ‘o’ and, in the mark applied for, by the geometric shape contained in the letter ‘t’ and the expression ‘aluminium panel radiator’, as well as by the stylisation of the typeface used.
76 In the light of the analysis contained in paragraph 67 above, it is clear that the elements differentiating the signs at issue either occupy a secondary position owing to their purely decorative character, as regards the stylisation of the typeface and the red geometric component, or are negligible, so far as concerns the expression ‘aluminium radiator panel’, due to its reduced size and proportion. Consequently, it must be held that the similarities between the word elements ‘thermrad’ and ‘termorad’ in the signs at issue outweigh their differences, since, in the present case, those differences are not sufficient to attenuate the visual similarities.
77 Consequently, the Board of Appeal justifiably considered that the marks at issue were visually similar to a high degree.
Phonetic similarity:
In the present case, the signs at issue coincide phonetically in that the word elements ‘therm’ and ‘term’ sound identical when pronounced, since, as is apparent from paragraph 66 of the contested decision, the letter ‘h’ is not pronounced in German, Dutch or French. The sound of the syllable ‘rad’ is also the same in the signs at issue. On the other hand, they differ in the sound of the letter ‘o’ and the expression ‘aluminium panel radiator’ in the mark applied for.
83 As regards that expression, it should be found, as the Board of Appeal considered, that it is highly probable that it will be ignored by the relevant public given its descriptive character and the secondary position it occupies owing to its smaller size and position at the bottom of the mark applied for (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 September 2014, El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR), T‑127/13, not published, EU:T:2014:767, paragraph 53; of 7 June 2018, MIP Metro v EUIPO – AFNOR (N & NF TRADING), T‑807/16, not published, EU:T:2018:337, paragraph 48; and of 14 June 2018, Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO – Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners), T‑310/17, not published, EU:T:2018:344, paragraph 39).
84 Consequently, the Board of Appeal was entitled to find that the marks at issue were phonetically similar to a high degree.
Conceptual similarity:
<<the Board of Appeal found that, despite the fact that the word elements ‘thermrad’ and ‘termorad’ did not convey a clear concept in relation to the goods at issue, both signs contained a word element which referred to the concept of ‘heat’ or ‘temperature’, namely ‘therm’ and ‘termo’. Nevertheless, since that similarity was based on an element the distinctiveness of which was weak, the Board of Appeal concluded that the signs at issue were conceptually similar to at least a low degree.
86 Those findings of the Board of Appeal, which, moreover, are not disputed by the applicant, are free from error and must therefore be upheld>>.
Distintività del marchio anteriore: normale, § 95
Sintesi:
<< 102 First of all, although the applicant insists, in the present case, that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is weak, it has nevertheless been found, contrary to his assertion, that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark was normal.
103 Furthermore, it has been established that the goods covered by the mark applied for were identical or similar to the goods covered by the earlier mark. Similarly, as is apparent from paragraphs 77, 84 and 86 above, the signs at issue have a high degree of visual and phonetic similarity and a low degree of conceptual similarity.
104 In addition, the public to be taken into account for the purpose of examining the likelihood of confusion consists of both the general public and professionals, both displaying a high level of attention on account of the fact that the goods at issue are purchased infrequently and are expensive. In that regard, in so far as, in paragraph 82 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal included in the assessment of the existence of a likelihood of confusion the part of the relevant public displaying a high level of attention, the Board of Appeal’s error, established in paragraph 34 above, is of no consequence.
105 In the light of all of the factors analysed above, it must be held that the conditions for finding that there is a likelihood of confusion are satisfied in the present case, on account of, in particular, the fact that the goods at issue are identical or similar and the overall similarity of the signs at issue, which are both formed of a fanciful and, therefore, distinctive word element in relation to those goods, and the normal distinctive character of the earlier mark, despite the high level of attention of the relevant public. Thus, in view of the interdependence of the various factors taken into account, it cannot be ruled out that the average consumer of the goods at issue residing in Benelux might believe that those goods come from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings.
106 Consequently, the complaint relating to the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion must be rejected>>.
OK. Ci pare tuttavia assai dubbio che il marchi odenominativo THERMRAD per <<<Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilation and water supply; radiators (heating); radiators for central heating’.>> sia valido in quanti mediament distintivit. Ci pare invee assai descrittivo e quindi nullo.
La fase amminsitrativa va male a Nestlè, il cuji segno è ritetnuto confondibile con l’anteriotià.
Uguale esito giudiziale.
In sintesi, Nestlè <<alleges, in essence, two errors made by the Board of Appeal in the global assessment. It maintains, first, that the Board of Appeal should have applied the case-law on short signs and followed EUIPO’s practice in that regard. Accordingly, a likelihood of confusion should have been excluded as the visual comparison is, in principle, decisive. In the applicant’s view, those principles were not mentioned at all, even though it had raised that matter in the proceedings before EUIPO. Secondly, the Board of Appeal did not take account of the fact that the visual aspect of the signs at issue plays a particularly important role with regard to the goods at issue. Those goods are sold in self-service stores, where consumers choose the product themselves and must therefore rely primarily on the image of the trade mark applied to the product>>§ 68.
Replica del Trib.:
<<It should be recalled that the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 47 of the contested decision, that the earlier international registration had an average degree of inherent distinctiveness. In addition, having concluded that the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue was neutral, it took into account, in the context of the examination of the likelihood of confusion, the identity or high degree of similarity of the goods at issue, the low degree of visual similarity and the high degree of phonetic similarity between those signs in order to reach the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion, in the present case, for the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large with a level of attention which could vary from average to high.
65 The Board of Appeal added, in paragraph 48 of the contested decision, that even though the visual aspect was likely to play a role in the selection of the goods concerned, it was highly conceivable that, confronted with the international registration at issue, consumers would perceive it as a variation of the earlier international registration, configured in a different way according to the type of goods covered. That would in fact lead them to believe that the identical or highly similar goods originate from the intervener or, as the case may be, from an undertaking economically linked to the intervener.
66 First, it must be found that the applicant is wrong to maintain that the Board of Appeal failed sufficiently to take into account the visual differences between the signs at issue. As stated in paragraph 55 above, the Board of Appeal did indeed note, in the context of its global analysis of the likelihood of confusion, that there was a low degree of visual similarity between those signs. That does not mean, however, that it disregarded the case-law on short signs. Although it is true that, in short signs, small differences may frequently lead to a different overall impression, that is not the case here, since a significant part of the relevant public readily recognises the element common to the signs at issue, which is their dominant element.
67 In the light of those considerations, it is necessary, secondly, to take into account the fact that the signs at issue are phonetically similar to a high degree, if not identical, which is also the case for the goods at issue. Those findings cannot be ignored in the global analysis of the likelihood of confusion, contrary to what the applicant appears to maintain, but also play an important role in accordance with the principle of interdependence as referred to in paragraph 61 above. It should be noted, in that regard, that, even though the goods at issue are sold on a self-service basis and the visual aspect is of some importance, that does not prevent the phonetic similarity between the signs from becoming apparent when the goods are sold orally or mentioned in radio advertisements, or in oral conversations which are likely to give rise to an imperfect recollection of the sign. [è il punto più interessante]
68 Similarly, having regard to the identity conferred by the element common to the signs at issue, it is conceivable, as the Board of Appeal stated, that consumers, confronted with the international registration at issue, will perceive it as a variation of the earlier international registration, configured in a different way according to the type of goods covered, which will lead them to believe that the identical or highly similar goods originate from the intervener or, as the case may be, from an undertaking economically linked to the intervener.
69 It is appropriate in that regard to reject the applicant’s argument that, in order to arrive at that finding, the Board of Appeal was wrong to refer to paragraph 49 of the judgment of 23 October 2002, Oberhauser v OHIM – Petit Liberto (Fifties) (T‑104/01, EU:T:2002:262), given that it applied to customs in the clothing sector and did not concern short signs the stylisation of which would be capable of indicating the commercial origin of a product, but signs consisting of the words ‘fifties’ and ‘miss fifties’, the addition of ‘miss’ being capable of being understood as a clothing line for women.
70 It should be noted, in that regard, that the Board of Appeal merely stated that there was a likelihood of confusion irrespective of the particular importance of the visual aspect, given that, visually, the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large will always perceive the same alphanumeric combination in the signs at issue, albeit stylised differently. Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant appears to state, it is conceivable that consumers in sectors other than the clothing sector, including the food and dietetic supplements sector, may believe that identical or highly similar goods originate from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings when faced with signs containing identical verbal or numerical elements, even if those signs are short.[mi pare esatto]
71 Accordingly, it should be concluded that, in the light of the fact that the signs at issue are visually similar to a low degree and phonetically highly similar or even identical, that a conceptual comparison is not possible, that the goods at issue are identical or highly similar and that the level of attention of the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large may vary from average to high, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001>>.
marchio chiesto in registrazione da Nestlèanteriorità
Il rigetto amminsitrativo è confermnato dal Trib. UE:
<<It should be recalled that the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 47 of the contested decision, that the earlier international registration had an average degree of inherent distinctiveness. In addition, having concluded that the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue was neutral, it took into account, in the context of the examination of the likelihood of confusion, the identity or high degree of similarity of the goods at issue, the low degree of visual similarity and the high degree of phonetic similarity between those signs in order to reach the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion, in the present case, for the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large with a level of attention which could vary from average to high.
65 The Board of Appeal added, in paragraph 48 of the contested decision, that even though the visual aspect was likely to play a role in the selection of the goods concerned, it was highly conceivable that, confronted with the international registration at issue, consumers would perceive it as a variation of the earlier international registration, configured in a different way according to the type of goods covered. That would in fact lead them to believe that the identical or highly similar goods originate from the intervener or, as the case may be, from an undertaking economically linked to the intervener.
66 First, it must be found that the applicant is wrong to maintain that the Board of Appeal failed sufficiently to take into account the visual differences between the signs at issue. As stated in paragraph 55 above, the Board of Appeal did indeed note, in the context of its global analysis of the likelihood of confusion, that there was a low degree of visual similarity between those signs. That does not mean, however, that it disregarded the case-law on short signs. Although it is true that, in short signs, small differences may frequently lead to a different overall impression, that is not the case here, since a significant part of the relevant public readily recognises the element common to the signs at issue, which is their dominant element.
67 In the light of those considerations, it is necessary, secondly, to take into account the fact that the signs at issue are phonetically similar to a high degree, if not identical, which is also the case for the goods at issue. Those findings cannot be ignored in the global analysis of the likelihood of confusion, contrary to what the applicant appears to maintain, but also play an important role in accordance with the principle of interdependence as referred to in paragraph 61 above. It should be noted, in that regard, that, even though the goods at issue are sold on a self-service basis and the visual aspect is of some importance, that does not prevent the phonetic similarity between the signs from becoming apparent when the goods are sold orally or mentioned in radio advertisements, or in oral conversations which are likely to give rise to an imperfect recollection of the sign.
68 Similarly, having regard to the identity conferred by the element common to the signs at issue, it is conceivable, as the Board of Appeal stated, that consumers, confronted with the international registration at issue, will perceive it as a variation of the earlier international registration, configured in a different way according to the type of goods covered, which will lead them to believe that the identical or highly similar goods originate from the intervener or, as the case may be, from an undertaking economically linked to the intervener.
69 It is appropriate in that regard to reject the applicant’s argument that, in order to arrive at that finding, the Board of Appeal was wrong to refer to paragraph 49 of the judgment of 23 October 2002, Oberhauser v OHIM – Petit Liberto (Fifties) (T‑104/01, EU:T:2002:262), given that it applied to customs in the clothing sector and did not concern short signs the stylisation of which would be capable of indicating the commercial origin of a product, but signs consisting of the words ‘fifties’ and ‘miss fifties’, the addition of ‘miss’ being capable of being understood as a clothing line for women.
70 It should be noted, in that regard, that the Board of Appeal merely stated that there was a likelihood of confusion irrespective of the particular importance of the visual aspect, given that, visually, the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large will always perceive the same alphanumeric combination in the signs at issue, albeit stylised differently. Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant appears to state, it is conceivable that consumers in sectors other than the clothing sector, including the food and dietetic supplements sector, may believe that identical or highly similar goods originate from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings when faced with signs containing identical verbal or numerical elements, even if those signs are short.
71 Accordingly, it should be concluded that, in the light of the fact that the signs at issue are visually similar to a low degree and phonetically highly similar or even identical, that a conceptual comparison is not possible, that the goods at issue are identical or highly similar and that the level of attention of the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large may vary from average to high, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001>>.
Di fronte a segni assai simili, la domanda di Rolex è stata ugualmente rigettata per assenza dell’affinità merceologica.
Questo quanto alla tutela ordinaria.
Quanto a quella straordinaria da rinomanza (tutto da vedere se sia esatto qualificarla <extra ordinem>), è anche essa pure rigettata : per carenza dei requisi posti dallrt. 12.1.e) cpi, anzi polsti dall’art. 8.5 reg. 207/2009.
In sostanza Rolex si è mantenuta nel vago anzichè addurre circostanze precise sul pregiudizio e/o sull’indebito vantaggio, previsti in dette disposizioni (basta quindi la prova di uno solo dei tre requisiti posti in alternativa -se si può dire così, dato che non sono due).
Punto importante. Stante la notorietà di Rolex, si potrebbe essere sorpresi, ma forse il T. ha visto giusto: non esiste in diritto il danno in re ipsa.
<< It must be borne in mind that a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM – Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame and others), T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74). The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion and marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (judgment of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 18).
76 In the present case, it must be pointed out that, as has been held in paragraphs 22, 28, 33 and 34 above, the Board of Appeal was right in finding that the goods and services at issue were, in part, identical and, in part, similar. As has been stated in paragraphs 52 and 58 above, the Board of Appeal also found, without making any error of assessment, that the signs at issue were visually similar to an average degree and phonetically similar to a high degree. As regards the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue, as has been held in paragraph 67 above, that comparison is, for part of the relevant public, neutral, whereas, for another part of that public, those signs are conceptually similar to an average degree. In the light of the fact that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal and the relevant public’s level of attention varies from average to high, and in the light of the interdependence between the similarity of the goods and services and the similarity of the marks, it must be held, in the context of a global assessment, that the Board of Appeal was right in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion.
77 In view of all of the foregoing considerations, the single plea must be rejected and, as a result, the action must be dismissed in its entirety>>.
Ebbene, Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-443/21, conferma l’ufficio ammisnitgrativo nella decisione per cui non son confondibili (merceologicamente quasi uguali).
Disposizione governante la lite: art. 8.1.b reg. 2017/1001
§§ 42, 45, 48: consumatore di media attenzione o più che media.
Giudizio:
<< 116 In the present case, it has been established that the public to be taken into account for the purposes of examining the likelihood of confusion is the average non-English-speaking consumer in the European Union with a level of attention which varies from average to ‘above average’, depending on the category of services under consideration. That public is able to understand the meaning of the common word elements of the marks at issue. Furthermore, the services at issue in Class 41 covered by the mark applied for have been considered to be in part identical and in part similar to the services covered by the earlier mark in the same class. Furthermore, the signs at issue have been found to be visually similar to a low degree and phonetically and conceptually similar to an average degree. Lastly, it is apparent from the analysis carried out in paragraphs 110 to 113 above that the inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark is weak.
117 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, as EUIPO rightly pointed out, that the ratio legis of trade mark law is to strike a balance between the interest which 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 (see, by analogy, judgment of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries, C‑65/12, EU:C:2014:49, paragraph 41).
118 It follows that excessive protection of marks consisting of elements which, as in the present case, have very weak distinctive character, if any, in relation to the 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.
119 It should be remembered that the visual, phonetic or conceptual aspects of the signs at issue do not always have the same weight and it is appropriate, in that global assessment, to take into account the nature of the services at issue and to examine the objective conditions under which the marks may appear on the market (see judgment of 26 June 2008, SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM – Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS), T‑79/07, not published, EU:T:2008:230, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
120 Thus, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 119 above, in the present case, it must be held that, in view of the fact that the phonetic and conceptual similarities are based exclusively on word elements which are devoid of distinctive character, the clear visual differences between them have a greater impact in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
121 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, where the earlier trade mark and the sign whose registration is sought coincide in an element that is weakly distinctive with regard to the goods at issue, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 does not often lead to a finding that such likelihood exists (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 June 2020, Primart v EUIPO, C‑702/18 P, EU:C:2020:489, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
122 In those circumstances, it must be held that, in the context of a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, having regard to the weak distinctive character of the common elements ‘yoga alliance’, the presence of figurative elements which are visually very different will enable the average consumer to make a clear distinction between the marks at issue, even for the part of the relevant public with an average level of attention, despite the identical or similar character of the services at issue. That is all the more true for the part of the relevant public with an above average level of attention. Accordingly, it follows that the Board of Appeal’s error in relation to the level of attention of the relevant public in respect of the ‘educational’ services found in paragraph 50 above cannot have a decisive effect on the outcome of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
123 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the Board of Appeal correctly concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public as regards the fact that the services at issue may come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings>>.
Il Trib. UE 12.10.2022, T-222/21, Shopify c. EUIPO, interv. Rossi e altri, decide sul se l’anteriorità del marchio denominativo SHOPIFY impedisca la registrazione del seguente
(marchio posteriore)
La sentenza rieprcorre il solito iter logico per il giudizio di confondibilità e conferma la decisione di reclamo amminstrativo per cui non c’è confonbililità.-
Tra i punti più interessanti:
— The relevant public for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is composed of users likely to use both the goods or services covered by the earlier mark and those covered by the contested mark. Thus, as a general rule, where the wording of the goods or services of one mark is wider than the wording of the other, the relevant public is generally defined by the narrower wording (see judgment of 24 May 2011, ancotel v OHIM – Acotel (ancotel.), T‑408/09, not published, EU:T:2011:241, paragraphs 38 and 39 and the case-law cited), § 23.
— Assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. It is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. That could be the case, in particular, where that component is capable on its own of dominating the image of that mark which members of the relevant public retain, with the result that all the other components are negligible in the overall impression created by that mark (judgments of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraphs 41 and 42, and of 20 September 2007, Nestlé v OHIM, C‑193/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:539, paragraphs 42 and 43). § 40.
41 In the present case, before assessing the similarity of the signs at issue, it is necessary to examine the distinctive and dominant elements of those signs.
– gli elementi descrittivi non son dominanti nella impressione complessiva, § 45.
— “shop” è dominante? è IL punto centralE: il Trib. dice di no :
49 In the second place, it is necessary to examine, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 40 above, whether or not the element ‘shop’ has a dominant role in the marks at issue.
50 So far as concerns the earlier mark, the other word component of it is the suffix ‘ify’, which, for the English-speaking public, will evoke the concept of transformation, and thus, together with the word ‘shop’, that of ‘making something become a shop’. Therefore, it is without committing an error of assessment that the Board of Appeal could find that the earlier mark, taken as a whole, was highly allusive to the goods and services aimed at creating e-commerce platforms or shopping sites that it designated for the English-speaking public. By contrast, for the non-English-speaking public, the suffix ‘ify’ has no meaning and therefore has an average distinctive character. In both cases, that additional element ‘ify’ is not negligible, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 40 above, in the earlier mark, and the element ‘shop’, which is moreover descriptive, cannot be regarded as dominant in that mark, contrary to what the applicant claims.
— bassa distinvitità del marchio anteriore, §§ 82/86
— SHOPIFY non ha acwuisito una particlare distinvitità col tempo, § 87 ss
— infine sul giudizio finale: in the present case, the Board of Appeal considered, in essence, that, despite the identity or similarity of the goods and services concerned, given the descriptive nature of the element common to the two marks at issue, namely ‘shop’, the attention of the relevant public focused on the differentiating elements, in particular, on the ‘ify’ and ‘pi’ endings of the two signs, meaning that the coincidence between the signs resulting from the presence of the said common element was not decisive and that the similarity was weak overall. Furthermore, in view of the high level of attention for professionals and higher than average level of attention for the general public as well as the weak distinctive character of the earlier mark, there was no likelihood of confusion., § 121
e poi
Moreover, as the Board of Appeal pointed out in paragraph 93 of the contested decision, although, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, the opposite is also true. With regard to a trade mark with a weak distinctive character, and which thus has a lesser capacity to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, the degree of similarity between the signs should, in principle, be high to justify a likelihood of confusion, or this would risk granting excessive protection to that trade mark and its proprietor (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 October 2020, NATURANOVE, T‑602/19, not published, EU:T:2020:463, paragraph 56)., § 125
il blog del prof. Goldman Eric dà notizia di altra sentenza che accerta violazione di marchio tramite inserzione keyword advertising: per la precisione “broad match keyword” cioè una frase più ampia e non la singola parola di interesse.
Nel caso Allied Modular building system, violando il marchio del concorrente Porta-Fab corporation, scelse la frase “Buy Portafab Today– WeManufacture/Install Direct”.
Qui la violazione è palese dato che c’è pure la frase di contorno che crea confuxione.
