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
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>>.
<<When Rigsby and the Foundation failed to pay
GoDaddy, a domain name registrar, the renewal fee for
scottrigsbyfoundation.org, a third party registered the thenavailable domain name and used it for a gambling
information site. (…)
The panel held that Rigsby could not satisfy the “use in
commerce” requirement of the Lanham Act vis-à-vis
GoDaddy because the “use” in question was being carried
out by a third-party gambling site, not GoDaddy, and Rigsby
therefore did not state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). As
to the Lanham Act claim, the panel further held that Rigsby
could not overcome GoDaddy’s immunity under the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which limits
the secondary liability of domain name registrars and
registries for the act of registering a domain name. The
panel concluded that Rigsby did not plausibly allege that
GoDaddy registered, used, or trafficked in his domain name
with a bad faith intent to profit, nor did he plausibly allege
that GoDaddy’s alleged wrongful conduct surpassed mere
registration activity>>
E sorpttutto sul § 230 CDA , che protegge da molte domande:
<<The panel held that § 230 of the Communications
Decency Act, which immunizes providers of interactive
computer services against liability arising from content
created by third parties, shielded GoDaddy from liability for
Rigsby’s state-law claims for invasion of privacy, publicity, trade libel, libel, and violations of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act.
The panel held that immunity under § 230
applies when the provider is an interactive computer
services, the plaintiff is treating the entity as the publisher or
speaker, and the information is provided by another
information content provider.
Agreeing with other circuits,
the panel held that domain name registrars and website
hosting companies like GoDaddy fall under the definition of
an interactive computer service.
In addition, GoDaddy was
not a publisher of scottrigsbyfoundation.org, and it was not
acting as an information content provider.>>
Louboutin L. agì contro Amazon (A.) per violazione di marchio azionando la norma corrispondente all’art. 9.2.a) dir,. 2017/1001. e spt. il § 3.b).
Quesito: << Con le loro questioni, che devono essere esaminate congiuntamente, i giudici del rinvio chiedono, in sostanza, se l’articolo 9, paragrafo 2, lettera a), del regolamento 2017/1001 debba essere interpretato nel senso che si possa ritenere che il gestore di un sito Internet di vendita online che integra, oltre alle proprie offerte di vendita, un mercato online usi esso stesso un segno identico a un marchio dell’Unione europea altrui per prodotti identici a quelli per i quali tale marchio è stato registrato, quando venditori terzi propongono in vendita su detto mercato, senza il consenso del titolare del citato marchio, siffatti prodotti recanti il suddetto segno. Essi si chiedono, in particolare, se sia rilevante a tal riguardo il fatto che detto gestore ricorra a una modalità di presentazione uniforme delle offerte pubblicate sul suo sito Internet, mostrando allo stesso tempo gli annunci relativi ai prodotti che vende in nome e per conto proprio e quelli relativi a prodotti proposti da venditori terzi su tale mercato, che esso faccia apparire il proprio logo di noto distributore su tutti i suddetti annunci e offra ai venditori terzi, nell’ambito della commercializzazione dei loro prodotti, servizi complementari consistenti nel fornire assistenza per la presentazione dei loro annunci nonché nello stoccaggio e nella spedizione dei prodotti proposti sul medesimo mercato. In siffatto contesto, i giudici del rinvio si interrogano altresì sulla questione se occorra prendere in considerazione, eventualmente, la percezione degli utenti del sito Internet in questione.>>, § 23.
risposta:
1° passo: <<Pertanto, per accertare se un annuncio, pubblicato su un sito Internet di vendita online che integra un mercato online da un venditore terzo attivo su quest’ultimo, che utilizza un segno identico a un marchio altrui possa essere considerato parte integrante della comunicazione commerciale del gestore di detto sito Internet, occorre verificare se tale annuncio possa stabilire un nesso tra i servizi offerti da detto gestore e il segno in questione, per il motivo che un utente normalmente informato e ragionevolmente attento potrebbe ritenere che sia il suddetto gestore a commercializzare, in nome e per conto proprio, il prodotto per il quale viene utilizzato il segno in questione.>>, § 48.
<< Per quanto riguarda, in primo luogo, la modalità di presentazione di tali annunci, si deve ricordare che la necessità che gli annunci su Internet siano mostrati in modo trasparente è sottolineata nella legislazione dell’Unione sul commercio elettronico (sentenza del 12 luglio 2011, L’Oréal e a., C‑324/09, EU:C:2011:474, punto 95). Gli annunci pubblicati su un sito Internet di vendita online che integra un mercato online devono quindi essere presentati in modo da consentire a un utente normalmente informato e ragionevolmente attento di distinguere facilmente le offerte provenienti, da un lato, dal gestore di tale sito Internet e, dall’altro, da venditori terzi attivi sul mercato online ivi integrato (v., per analogia, sentenza del 12 luglio 2011, L’Oréal e a., C‑324/09, EU:C:2011:474, punto 94).
51 Orbene, la circostanza che il gestore di un sito Internet di vendita online che integra un mercato online ricorra a una modalità di presentazione uniforme delle offerte pubblicate sul suo sito Internet, mostrando allo stesso tempo i propri annunci e quelli dei venditori terzi e facendo apparire il proprio logo di noto distributore tanto sul suo sito Internet quanto su tutti i suddetti annunci, compresi quelli relativi a prodotti offerti da venditori terzi, può rendere difficile tale chiara distinzione e dare quindi all’utente normalmente informato e ragionevolmente attento l’impressione che sia il suddetto gestore a commercializzare, in nome e per conto proprio, anche i prodotti offerti in vendita dai menzionati venditori terzi. Pertanto, se detti prodotti recano un segno identico a un marchio altrui, tale presentazione uniforme è idonea a creare un collegamento, agli occhi di siffatti utenti, fra il segno in questione e i servizi forniti dal medesimo gestore.
In particolare, quando il gestore di un sito Internet di vendita online associa alle varie offerte, provenienti da lui stesso o da terzi, senza distinzioni in funzione della loro origine, etichette quali «bestseller», «i più desiderati» o «i più regalati», al fine segnatamente di promuovere alcune di tali offerte, siffatta presentazione è idonea a rafforzare nell’utente normalmente informato e ragionevolmente attento l’impressione che i prodotti così promossi siano commercializzati da detto gestore, in nome e per conto proprio.>>, §§ 49-50.
2° passo:
< In secondo luogo, la natura e la portata dei servizi forniti dal gestore di un sito Internet di vendita online che integra un mercato online ai venditori terzi che propongono su tale mercato prodotti recanti il segno in questione, come quelli consistenti, in particolare, nel trattamento delle domande degli utenti relative a tali prodotti o nello stoccaggio, nella spedizione e nella gestione dei resi di detti prodotti, possono del pari dare l’impressione, a un utente normalmente informato e ragionevolmente attento, che questi stessi prodotti siano commercializzati da detto gestore, in nome e per conto proprio, e quindi creare un nesso, agli occhi di tali utenti, tra i suoi servizi e i segni che appaiono su detti prodotti nonché negli annunci dei menzionati venditori terzi>>, § 53.
Risposta finale:
<<l’articolo 9, paragrafo 2, lettera a), del regolamento 2017/1001 deve essere interpretato nel senso che si può ritenere che il gestore di un sito Internet di vendita online che integra, oltre alle proprie offerte di vendita, un mercato online utilizzi esso stesso un segno identico a un marchio dell’Unione europea altrui per prodotti identici a quelli per i quali tale marchio è stato registrato, quando venditori terzi propongono in vendita sul mercato in parola, senza il consenso del titolare di detto marchio, siffatti prodotti recanti il suddetto segno, se un utente normalmente informato e ragionevolmente attento di tale sito stabilisce un nesso tra i servizi del menzionato gestore e il segno in questione, il che si verifica in particolare quando, tenuto conto di tutti gli elementi che caratterizzano la situazione di cui trattasi, un utente siffatto potrebbe avere l’impressione che sia il gestore medesimo a commercializzare, in nome e per conto proprio, i prodotti recanti il suddetto segno. È rilevante a tale riguardo il fatto che detto gestore ricorra a una modalità di presentazione uniforme delle offerte pubblicate sul suo sito Internet, mostrando allo stesso tempo gli annunci relativi ai prodotti che vende in nome e per conto proprio e quelli relativi a prodotti proposti da venditori terzi su tale mercato, che esso faccia apparire il proprio logo di noto distributore su tutti i suddetti annunci e che esso offra ai venditori terzi, nell’ambito della commercializzazione dei prodotti recanti il segno in questione, servizi complementari consistenti in particolare nello stoccaggio e nella spedizione di tali prodotti.>>, § 54
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>>.
