giudizio di confondibilità – Pagina 3

Insufficiente affinità merceologica tra abbigliamento ed orologi di lusso: non raggiuntra la prova dell’abuso di notorietà o del danno ad essa

Trib. UE 18.01.2023, T-726/21, Rolex SA c. EUIPO-PWT A/S nell’opposizione di Rolex (alta orologeria) contro marchio simile per abbigliamento.

<< it has already been held that jewellery and watches, even precious stones, one the one hand, and items of clothing, on the other, could not be regarded as similar (see, to that effect, judgments of 24 March 2010, 2nine v OHIM – Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie), T‑364/08, not published, EU:T:2010:115, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited, and of 10 October 2018, Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO – A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882), T‑374/17, not published, EU:T:2018:669, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). (…)

In addition, it must be pointed out that the fact that the goods at issue may be sold in the same commercial establishments, such as department stores, is not particularly significant, since very different kinds of goods may be found in such shops, without consumers automatically believing that they have the same origin (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 July 2015, BH Stores v OHIM – Alex Toys (ALEX), T‑657/13, EU:T:2015:449, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited).>>, §§ 25 E 31.

Sullo sfruttamento della e/o sul danno alla rinomanza:

<< 42 In order to benefit from the protection introduced by the provisions of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the proprietor of the earlier mark must, first of all, adduce proof, either that the use of the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, or that it would be detrimental to that distinctive character or that repute (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 37).

43 In that regard, although the proprietor of the earlier trade mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present injury to its mark for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, it must, however, prove that there is a serious risk that such an injury will occur in the future (judgment of 4 March 2020, Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO, C‑155/18 P to C‑158/18 P, EU:C:2020:151, paragraph 75; see also, by analogy, judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation, C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 38).

44 The Board of Appeal noted that, in order to demonstrate the existence of one of the types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the applicant had not submitted observations to it, but that, before the Opposition Division, it had argued that the intervener could take unfair advantage of the degree of recognition of the earlier composite mark on account of the fact that the signs at issue were almost identical and the immense reputation acquired by the earlier marks, which allegedly convey images of prestige, luxury and an active lifestyle. It found that, by those arguments, the applicant had in fact merely referred to the wording of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, without submitting any coherent arguments as to why one of such injuries would occur. The Board of Appeal inferred from this that no injury referred to in that provision was established>>.

Un caso di rigetto di domanda del titolare di marchio rinomato verso prodotti merceologicamente lontani dai propri

Qualche volta anche ai titolari di marchi assai rinomati non va bene: provbabilmente si può dire che ciò capita quando la rinomanza è molto settoriale.

E’ questo il caso di Trib. Ue T-4/22 del 21.12.2022, Puma SE v. EUIPO + DN solutions co ltd.

Nonostante i segnia parafone fossero quasi identici (

) e nonostante il secondo fosse certamente rinomato, tuttavia l’opposizione è rigettata: troppa lontananza merceologica (Lathes; CNC (computer numerical control) lathes; machining centers; turning center; electric discharge machine’ versus abbigliamento)!

Ancora sul giudizio di confondibilità tra marchio denominativo e successivo marchio complessio (figurativo-denominativo)

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

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

I non fungible tokens rientrano nell’ambito della privativa di marchio , secondo il Tribunale di roma

Grazie ad Eleonora Rosati in IPKat che fornisce il link al testo della ordinanza cautelare, già notiziataci dai media, ove protagonsta attrice è Juventus Football Club (Trib. Roma 19/20.07.2022 ord., RG 32072/2022, repert. 14994/2022, giudice Lando Alfredo).

Niente di nuovo. Sono questioni classiche di diritto industriale, tranne che per l’attività contraffattoria che nel caso è costituita da un qujd tecnologicamente nuovo: card in formato digitale (NFT).

Non c’è dubbio che la loro commercializzazione rientri nel concetto di “uso nell’attività economica” ex art. 21/1 c. propr. ind. (mai citato peraltro dal giudice!): è poco comprensibile quindi il clamore suscitato negli ambienti giuridici.

La cessata attività da parte del convenuto non farebbe venir meno il periculum in mora, secondo il G., perchè potrebbe essere sempre reiterato l’illecito , anche considerato che il contretto di sfruttamento della notoreità in essere non è ancora scaduto. Punto importante anche se il motivo è quasi tautologico.

Dei NFT non si dice che erano conservati su blockchain, come di solito avviene.

Nedim Malovic sempre su IPKat pone l’interessante questione delle modalità esecutive dell’ordine di distruzione quando i tokens siano su una blockchain, i cui dati dovrebbero essere immodificabili. Dà un paio di soluzioni possibili.

Lotta tra marchi figurativi (complessi): il caso Polo Club

Questi i due marchi in competizione:

Sovrapponibilità merceologica totale.

Decide Tribunale UE sentenz a19.10.2022 , T-437/21, Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. c. EUIPO + Lifestyle Equities CV interv.

Sentenza interessante che riassume il modo di condurre il giudizio nel caso di marchio figurativi rectius complessi.

Il Tribunale cofnerma l’ufficio mnel sensp cjhe c’è il rischio di confondibilitò

<< 89 In the present case, it must be borne in mind, first, as is clear from paragraphs 45 to 51 above, that the Board of Appeal did not make any error of assessment in finding that the goods at issue were, in part, identical and, in part, similar to a normal to high degree.

90 Secondly, as has been stated in paragraph 60 above, since the goods at issue are not directly connected with polo playing, the signs at issue have a normal to enhanced degree of distinctiveness with regard to those goods.

91 Thirdly, as is clear from paragraphs 36, 68 and 81 above, the signs at issue are characterised by an average degree of visual similarity, a low degree of phonetic similarity and a high degree of conceptual similarity. The Board of Appeal was therefore right in finding that the signs at issue were similar overall to an average degree.

92 Accordingly, given that the factors relevant to the assessment of whether there is a likelihood of confusion are interdependent, as has been stated in paragraph 82 above, the identity of the goods, coupled with the high degree of conceptual similarity between the signs at issue, is sufficient to conclude, in the present case, that there is a likelihood of confusion with regard to the goods at issue which have been held to be identical (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 February 2004, Koubi v OHIM – Flabesa (CONFORFLEX), T‑10/03, EU:T:2004:46, paragraph 58).

93 As regards the goods which have been held to be similar to an average to high degree, that factor, combined with the signs’ similarity – above all their conceptual similarity – and with the average degree of distinctiveness of the signs with regard to those goods, is sufficient to conclude, as the Board of Appeal found, that a likelihood of confusion cannot be excluded (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 November 2016, POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN, T‑67/15, not published, EU:T:2016:657, paragraph 88).>>

Violazione di marchio e copyright circa il celeberrimo marchio di Patagonia da parte di un venditore su Walmart

Si consideri il seguente logo di Patagonia:

(immagine presa dal web: https://www.bergfreunde.it/patagonia-p-6-logo-responsibili-tee-t-shirt/)

e questo:

(immagine presa dal web: https://bluequillangler.com/patagonia-logo/?s=)

Ebbene, Patagonia lamenta che i suoi diritti di marchio e copyright siano violati dal segno grafico presente nelle magliette prodotte da Robin Ruth e distribuite da WalMart: si v. l’immagine a p. 2 della citazione in giudizio di cui appresso e già qui riprodotta:

Il segno è simile quanto all’elemento non denominativo, ma assai diverso rispetto a quello denominativo.

La prof. Alexandra Roberts offre il link all’atto di citaizone in giudizo presso la corte di Los Angeles.

La difesa non ragiona su questa differenza: si limita a dare per scontata l’associazione tra le due imprese:

<< In blatant disregard of Patagonia’s rights in the PATAGONIA
trademarks—and without authorization from Patagonia—Defendants have
promoted, offered for sale, and sold shirts bearing designs and logos that are nearly identical to the P-6 Trout logo and P-6 logo, only replacing Patagonia’s
PATAGONIA word mark with the word “Montana,” which inevitably will imply to
consumers that Patagonia has endorsed or authorized these products>>.

Il caso non è semplice e bisogna distinguere tra i due marchi di Patagonia.

Ferma la uguaglianza merceologica, i segni differiscono in toto quanto alla componente denominativa , la quale ha un ruolo quantomeno coessenziale a quella a figurativa nel marchio attoreo. I nomi poi son scritti diversamente: carattere assai peculiare nell’attore, banale nel covnenuto.

Ma può essere che alla fine il consumatore associ il marchio del secondo all’impresa del primo. E visto che basta il rischio di ciò (art. 20.1.b, cod. propr. ind.) , da noi la domanda potrebbe essere accolta .

Conclusione direi quasi certa per il secondo marchio (a forma di pesce), più difficile per il primo (solo montagna, concettualmente altro dal pesce).

Vedremo.

Sulla confondibilità tra marchi figurativo-denominativi

marchio posteriore (quello sub iudice) NB: In the application for registration, the applicant claimed the following colours: orange, red, silver, black and grey, § 4.

anteriorità fatta valere dall’opponente ex Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Merceologicamente sono largamente sovrapponibili (o comunqUe vicini).

Al registrante va male in sede amministrativa.

Gli va male anche davanti al Trib. UE, sent. 28.09.2022, T-454/21, G-Core Innovations Sàrl c. EUIPO+1.

Elemento dominante è la lettera G << 40 It follows that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding, in paragraphs 35, 36 and 41 of the contested decision, that the dominant element of the mark applied for was the figurative element representing a letter ‘G’, that the word element ‘core’ had an average degree of distinctiveness for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public and, lastly, that the element ‘labs’ was weakly distinctive both for the English-speaking and non-English-speaking parts of the relevant public.>>

Bassa somiglianza visiva, § 47.

Profilo fonetico: << 54 Therefore, in the light of the presence of the word element ‘core’ in both the signs at issue, its position in the pronunciation of the mark applied for and all the other phonetic elements of which it consists, which are liable to create impressions of phonetic differences between the marks at issue, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the signs at issue were similar to at least a lower than average degree.>>

Vicinanza concettuale (interessnte la distinzione a seconda della lingua): << 59 Therefore, having regard, first of all, to the lack of conceptual meaning produced by the figurative element and the element ‘G’ of the mark applied for, next, to the meaning conveyed by the element ‘core’ for the English-speaking public and its lack of meaning for the non-English-speaking public and, lastly, to the meaning, for the relevant English-speaking and non-English-speaking public, of the element ‘labs’ in the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the marks at issue were conceptually, first, dissimilar for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public and, secondly, similar to an average degree for the English-speaking part of the relevant public.>>

Giudizio complessivo (non facilissimo, stanti i presupposti di ridotta vicinanza e elevata attenzione del consumatore, ma con soprapponilità merceologica). << 73 Therefore, having regard, in particular, to the identity and similarity of the goods and services at issue, the low degree of visual similarity, the lower than average degree of phonetic similarity, the average conceptual similarity for the English-speaking part of the relevant public and, lastly, the lack of conceptual similarity between the marks at issue for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public, offset, inter alia, by the existence of an average degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark in respect of that public, the Board of Appeal was right to find that there was a likelihood of confusion both for the English-speaking and non-English-speaking parts of the relevant public and that notwithstanding the degree of attention, varying from average to high, which that public may display in the choice of goods and services at issue.

74 In the light of all of the foregoing, the single plea in law of the action, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, must be rejected.>>

Il Tribunale UE su una lite tra marhci denomainativo-figurativ (Tigercat v. Cat)

Trib. UE 13.07.2022, T-251/21, Tigercat International Inc., e c. EUIPO + Caterpillar interv., decide la lite sulla registrabilità del marchio denominativo TIGERCAT ala luce dell’anterità costituita da

I prodotti erano uguali (‘Specialised power-operated forestry equipment, namely, purpose built four wheel drive-to-tree and track type log bunchers, log loading machines, skidders and other forestry industry equipment, namely, bunching saws, bunching shears and components parts thereof’).

Il pubblico è molto attento, essendo professionale, § 23 ss

Predominanti nel secondo son entrambi gli elementi, alla pari. Nel primo, poi, la figura non oscura la parola, § 59.

Conferma che ricorre la visual similarity, § 64.

Ricorre anche quella fonetica, §§ 69-74. Qui l’interesse sta nel fatto che quello posteriore è composto e comprende quello anteriore.

Esatta è anche la stima di confondibilità concettuale (richiamo CAT), § 84.

In breve c’è rischio di confusione, § 94 e 97

Il Tribunale dunque conferma le decisioni amministrative

Confondibilità tra marchi nel settore dei cosmetici (Rejeneusse v. Revanesse)

Secondo il Tribunale UE con sentenza 13.07.2022, T-543/21, Purasac v. EUIPO-Prommenium, i due termini, per i medesimi prodotti, hanno notevole somiglianza visiva e fonetica.

Ecco il marchio posteriore (l’anteriore REVANESSE era solo denominativo):

Il TRib. non dà importanza alla differenza (presente nella parte centrale delle parole) ma alla uguaglianza della parte iniziale e finale.

Nè da importanza al logo stilizzato che accompagna il marchio posteriore, ritenendolo privo di distintività e rivestente un ruolo solo decorativo (§§ 36 e 45)

Conclude nel senso che il rischio di confusione c’è.

Il caso della confondibilità del marchio CAVA per spumanti

La Commissione di ricorso dell’EUIPO con decisione 22.04.2022, proc. R 981/2021-1, Conmsejo regulador del Cava c. Covides, decide una lite su marchio contenente (anche) il termine CAVA.

Prodotti identici, solo che l’anteriorità era stata riprodotta con visibilità minima all’interno di un marchio tridimensionale costiotuito da una bottiglia ed etichetta colorata (non è chairo se pure la stessa bottiholia, § 1)

Si vb. la riproduizone grafica dei marchi a paragone a p. 2 e spt. al § 18.

Laconclusione quasi scontata (un’impugnazione al Tribubale UE sarebbe assai azzardati) è che non c’è confondibilità: << Tenuto conto delle considerazioni che precedono e nonostante l’identità dei prodotti dei marchi in conflitto, la tenue somiglianza visiva e concettuale tra i segni e l’assenza di somiglianza fonetica permettono al pubblico di riferimento di
differenziarli senza creare un rischio di confusione. Come argomentato, i marchi
in conflitto coincidono solo nel termine “CAVA”, che è un elemento dotato di
limitata capacità distintiva e, inoltre, non è il termine dominante del marchio
richiesto, che è “CHENINE”. La Commissione reitera l’osservazione della
Divisione di Opposizione secondo la quale i consumatori sono a conoscenza del
fatto che il termine “CAVA” designa un tipo di vino spumante proveniente dalla
Spagna e sono abituati a vedere questo elemento in combinazione con altri
elementi denominativi e diverse caratteristiche grafiche. Per questa ragione, il
pubblico di riferimento si concentrerà sul termine dominante del marchio
contestato “CHENINE” come identificativo dell’origine imprenditoriale dei
prodotti in questione — nonostante la possibile associazione tra parte del
pubblico di riferimento e una tipologia di ualità — rispetto al termine dominante
del marchio anteriore “CAVA”, la cui capacità distintiva è limitata per gli stessi
prodotti >>, § 33.

(trad. automatica nel database dell’ufficio dell’originale spagnolo).

Sulla distintività del termine CAVA v. il § 28.