Categoria: la tutela del marchio

Confondibilità tra marchi figurativi

Marchio chiesto in registrazione (per elettronica e gaming digitale):

Anteriorità opposta (per prodotti parzialment simili):

Il Tribunale UE 19.04.2023, T-491/22, Zitro International Sàrl c. EUIPO-a-gaming s.r.o., conferma l’appello amministrativo nel senso che non c’è confondibilità

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>>.

L’esaurimento di marchio opera anche in presenza di distribuzione selettiva, se non ne è adeguatamente provata la sua attuazione oltre progettaizone

Cass. sez. 1 del 14.03.2023 n. 7378, rel. Fidanzia, circa il legittimo motivo che osta all’esarimento del marchio (art. 5 cod. propr. ind.) costituito da distribuzione selettiva di prodotti di lusso.

<<La Corte d’Appello si è limitata a dare atto che Chantecler aveva ben “indicato”, già nel procedimento di primo grado, quali caratteristiche dovevano possedere i rivenditori della sua rete, ritenendo, tuttavia, all’esito dell’esame del materiale probatorio – difformemente rispetto alle conclusioni cui era pervenuto il giudice di primo grado – che non vi era prova che i criteri elencati dalla Chantecler (ubicazione in capoluoghi di provincia o importanti comuni di provincia o zone di rilevante interesse turistico commerciale, posizione centrale dell’esercizio commerciale; tradizione consolidata nel tempo dell’esercizio; alta professionalità dell’esercente ed elevata qualità del servizio offerto ai clienti; stigliature ed arredi presenti nell’esercizio eleganti e di alta qualità; commercializzazione autorizzata di importanti marchi di gioielleria quali a titolo esemplificativo: Bulgari, Pomellato, Buccellati, Cartier, Chopard, etc) fossero stati dalla stessa effettivamente applicati nell’individuazione dei distributori.

In particolare, ha precisato la Corte di merito che, nei contratti di distribuzione (valorizzati dal Tribunale in senso favorevole alla ricorrente), non era, in realtà, indicato alcun criterio in forza del quale il singolo distributore era stato selezionato, né che, nel corso del rapporto, il distributore dovesse continuare a mantenere il possesso dei requisiti richiesti. Neanche i contratti di agenzia prodotti in causa (valorizzati difformemente dal Tribunale) erano idonei a fornire la prova dell’esistenza di un sistema di distribuzione selettiva e comunque risultavano conclusi dopo quelli con i distributori, non consentendo quindi di affermare che i distributori fossero stati in precedenza selezionati sulla base dei criteri previsti dai contratti di agenzia….

Infine, la Corte d’Appello, nell’esaminare i diversi criteri indicati da Chantecler per la selezione dei distributori, ha comunque accertato che ben venticinque esercizi su novantanove presenti nell’elenco non erano ubicati né in capoluoghi di provincia, né in zone di interesse turistico.

Alla luce delle soprariportate osservazioni, la Corte territoriale ha concluso che difettava la prova che i distributori autorizzati fossero stati selezionati sulla base del possesso di determinati requisiti prestabiliti.

Come già anticipato, trattasi di valutazione di fatto che non è sindacabile in sede di legittimità, essendo stata articolatamente congruamente con una motivazione immune da vizi logici>>.

Segue importante precisazione processuale su come vada fatta valere l’eccezione:

<<In ogni caso, se era pur vero che la Chantecler aveva richiesto di provare, anche per testimoni, la circostanza che i distributori erano stati selezionati in base ai criteri sopra indicati, tuttavia, dopo che il Tribunale aveva ritenuto superflua la prova, la Chantecler s.p.a. non aveva proposto l’istanza, in sede di precisazione delle conclusioni di primo grado, con la conseguenza che la stessa doveva ritenersi rinunciata, e non poteva essere presa in considerazione nel giudizio d’appello, pur se in quella sede era stata riproposta>>.

Un caso di marchio nullo perchè pregiudizievole della rinomanza (o distintività) di marchio rinomato anteriore

I casi in oggetto non sono frequenti ma ora ce ne è uno deciso dal board of appeal del’EUIPO: marchio grafico a forma di coniglietto per sex toys che riproduce quasi pedissequamente prevcedetne marchio rinomato usato  per prodotti per l’infanzia.

Si tratta del 4° board of appeal 10.01.2023, case R 442/2022-4, Mercis BR c. Bunnyjuice, Inc (qui la pag. dell’ufficio ed invece  qui il link diretto al file word)

Intgeressa soprattutto:

i) a fini pratici, le prove documentali (corpose) prodotte dall’opponente a fondamento della allegazione di reputazione/rinomanza, trattata ai §§  41 ss (tra cui pure un sondaggio di mercato, § 53)

ii) il passaggio sul detriment:

<< (iv)       Use which would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark

  • The types of injury against which Article 8(5) EUTMR ensures protection for the benefit of trade marks with a reputation are, first, detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, secondly, detriment to the repute of that mark and, thirdly, unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark which ultimately addresses the question of whether there is a positive or a negative image transfer to or from the contested sign. Just one of those three types of injury suffices for that provision to apply (27/11/2008, C-252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 27, 28).
  • Detriment to the repute of the earlier mark under Article 8(5) EUTMRconcerns harming the earlier mark by way of detriment to its repute. Detriment to repute relates to situations where use of the contested mark without due cause is likely to devalue the image or the prestige that a mark with reputation has acquired among the public.
  • The reputation of the earlier trade mark may be tainted or debased in this way, either when it is reproduced in an obscene, degrading or inappropriate context, or in a context that is not inherently unpleasant but that proves to be incompatible with a particular image the earlier trade mark has acquired in the eyes of the public due to the promotional efforts of its owner. The likelihood of such detriment may arise in particular from the fact that the goods or services offered by the third party possess a characteristic or a quality that is liable to have a negative impact on the image of the mark (18/06/2009, C‑487/07, L’Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
  • As a consequence of the link established, the Board finds that, as correctly argued by the opponent, use of the contested mark would be detrimental to the repute of the earlier mark. Indeed, it is likely that use of the contested mark for the goods in Class 10 concerned would devalue the image that the earlier mark has acquired amongst the public.

As the evidence submitted by the opponent shows, the earlier mark appeals to children, instilling a sense of safety. The earlier mark stands for innocence, no aggression, no controversy and respect for the world of children encouraging them to develop and value their own identity and to express themselves in their own way allowing scope for their own imagination. The goods covered by the contested mark obviously possess characteristics which are incompatible with this image and is liable to have a negative impact on it>>.

(notizia e link da Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot in IPKat in data odierna)

Scarsissima affinità merceologica ma notevole vicinanza tra segni: la domanda di marchio è respinta per l’anteriorità di un segno rinomato

sul caso DEVICE OF A RABBIT WITH OVAL SHAPED EARS.

L’appello amminsitrativo EUIPO rigetta la domanda di registrazione con decisione 10 gennaio 2023 , case R 442/2022-4, Mercis BV c. Bunnyjuice, Inc. (ove trovi il link al file word della decisione, che per comodità ripeto qui ).

Paragone tra i segni al § 39/40

Rinomanza riconosciuta: <54 In sum, it has been proven that the earlier mark representing the Nijntje character had at the date of application of the contested mark a very strong reputation at least in the Netherlands, which suffices to prove a reputation in the Benelux (see paragraph 42 above) for, amongst others, books in Class 16, children books in particular, clothing in Class 25, children’s clothing in particular, and games and playthings in Class 28>.

Segue analisi dei rimanenti requisiti ex lege (“uso senza giusto motivo del marchio depositato possa trarre indebito vantaggio dal carattere distintivo o dalla notorietà del marchio anteriore o recare pregiudizio agli stessi”)

Un caso da manuale di tutela della rinomanza: il marchio denominativo GOOGLE CAR

Trib. UE 01.02.2023, T-569/21, Zoubier Harbaoui c. EUIPO-Google LLC decide la lite.

Naturalmente applica la tutela della rinomanza (art. 8.5 reg. 2017/1001) : se non lo fa con Google , uno dei brand più famosi al mondo, non si sa quando mai possa applicarla!

Si noti che è stato (giustamente) ritenuto irrilevante il fatto che Google :

i) non lo avesse registrato per autoveicoli ma per prodotti-servizi  diverse; e che

ii) commercializzasse le proprie auto con altro marchio  (WAYMO : v. https://waymo.com/).

Riporto solo il passo sull’indebito vantaggio/unfair advantage: << The risk of unfair advantage covers the situation in which the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with the reputation (see judgment of 26 September 2018, PUMA, T‑62/16, EU:T:2018:604, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). In order to determine whether the use of the later mark takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, it is necessary to undertake a global assessment, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, which include the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation and the degree of distinctive character of the mark, the degree of similarity between the marks at issue and the nature and degree of proximity of the goods or services concerned. As regards the strength of the reputation and the degree of distinctive character of the earlier mark, it follows from the case-law that the stronger that mark’s distinctive character and reputation are, the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it (judgment of 18 June 2009, L’Oréal and Others, C‑487/07, EU:C:2009:378, paragraph 44; see also judgment of 28 May 2020, Galletas Gullón v EUIPO – Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH), T‑677/18, not published, EU:T:2020:229, paragraph 121). The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later mark, the greater the likelihood that the current or future use of the later mark is taking unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark (judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 67)>>.

Interessante è il passaggio processuale relativo al fatto che il giudizio dell’Ufficio non debba analiticamente cpnsiderere tutti i prodotti indicati nelle classi scelte ma possa raggrupparli, §§ 29-30

Cponfondibilityà tyras marchio nenominativo e complesso: il caso Tjhermorad

marchio posteriore

Anteriorità: word mark THERMRAD

Merceologicamente prodotti abbastanza affini.

Ecco il giudizio di Trib. UE 8 maro 2023 , T-172/22, Salim Selahaddin Gönenç  c. EUIPO-Solar A/S.

Visual similarity:

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.

Confondibilità tra i marchi “A2” nel settore alimentare

Trib. UE 08 marzo 2023 T-759/21, Nestlè c. EUIPO-The a2 Milk Company Ltd, established in Auckland (New Zealand).

Ecco i marchi a paragone:

marchio Nestlè, chiesto in registrazione

a fronte della seguente anteriorità:

anteriorità dell’opponente

Merceolgicamente assai affini.

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>>.

Somiglianza tra marchi A2 per prodotti alimentari : rigettta la domdanda registratoreia di Nestlè

Trib. UE 8 marzo 2023, T-759/21, Nestlè c. EUIPO- The a2 Milk Company Ltd, sull’oggetto.

ecco i marchi:

marchio chiesto in registrazione da Nestlè
anteriorità

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>>.

Affinità merceologica (assente) tra abbigliamento e gioelleria + requisiti per la tutela extramerceologia della rinomanza: il Tribunale UE sul caso Rolex

Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-726/21, Rolex SA cv. EUIPO-PWT A/S , sull’oggetto.

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.

Gli operatori prendano nota.