marchi denominativi – Lorenzo Albertini

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

Giudizio di confondibilità tra marchi denominativi : altro intervento europeo

Il Trib. UE 27.10.2021, T-356/20, Václav Jiruš, c. EUIPO, si pronuncia sull’oggetto confermando il giudizio di confondibilità già emesso dall’Ufficio.

I marchi a confronto sono SYNDICATE, e RAcing Syndicate (scritto con particolarità grafiche: v. sentenza linkata).

I generi merceologici sono vicini anche se non sovrapponibili, §§ 3 e 6 (basso grado di affinità, § 53).

Quanto alla somiglianza tra segni, a parte la consueta triade di esame (visual phonetic conceptual) , § 55, il Trib. ricorda che l’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 (see judgment of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). 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 (judgments of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 42, and of 20 September 2007, Nestlé v OHIM, C‑193/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:539, paragraph 43). 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 (judgment of 20 September 2007, Nestlé v OHIM, C‑193/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:539, paragraph 43), § 56.

Questo in generale.

Nello specifico, poi, the term ‘Racing’ in the contested mark refers in general to the concept of races which take place in the context of sporting events. Consequently, as the Board of Appeal rightly pointed out, so far as concerns the goods in Classes 9 and 28 covered by the contested mark, the term ‘Racing’ refers to a possible use of the protective equipment in question, namely the fact that it is intended or suitable for being used in races which take place in the context of sporting events. It therefore has a weak inherent distinctive character. In view of that finding and, moreover, in the light of the fact that, in the contested sign, the terms ‘Racing’ and ‘Syndicate’ are the same size, the same colour and are stylised in the same way, the term ‘Racing’ cannot, contrary to what the applicant claims, be regarded as dominating the overall impression created by the contested mark. , § 65

Segue applicazione partita per singole classi merceologiche

Si tratta di precisazioni sempre utili al pratico, che vale la pena di rinfrescare .

Marchi denominativi e ruolo del cognome (di persona famosa): sul giudizio di confondibilità

Trib. UE 16.06.2021, T-368/20, Smiley Miley Inc. c. EUIPO, decide la questione della registrabilità del segno denominativo MILEY CIRUS dopo opposizione che allega la seguente anteriorità grafico/denominativa :

Image not found

Si trata di utile sentenz aper ripassare ifodnametnali del giudizio di confondibilità, compresa il ruolo del segno costituetne nome/cognome, § 29.ss.

La componente visuale e fonetica porta ad un giudizio di somiglianza media, § 45-46.

Quella concettuale, invece , viene esclusa: <<As regards, next, the earlier mark CYRUS, it must be held that, contrary to what EUIPO claims, the fact that the name Cyrus is not a common surname does not necessarily support the inference, in the present case, that the relevant public will perceive that surname alone as the short version of the full name Miley Cyrus, thus identifying the same person. As has been stated in paragraph 37 above, Miley Cyrus markets her activities and performs on stage using her first name and surname taken together. By contrast, it has been neither suggested nor demonstrated that she has been known as a singer or actress by her surname alone. It is thus apparent that the fact that Miley Cyrus is well known, as a singer and actress, results from her first name and surname taken together, and not from her surname alone. Accordingly, the mere fact that that name is not common does not support the inference that the relevant public will perceive the word ‘cyrus’, taken alone, as referring to the famous singer and actress Miley Cyrus, who, according to the evidence before the Court, has specifically never used the name Cyrus in isolation in the course of her career. It must therefore be held that the earlier mark has no particular semantic meaning for the relevant public.

It thus follows from the foregoing considerations that the applicant is correct in claiming that the marks at issue are conceptually different and that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the conceptual comparison was neutral.>>, § 58-59.

Le componenti dette sono astrattamente compensabili, § 60, ed è cioè che avviene nel caso sub iudice <<The mark applied for, MILEY CYRUS, has a clear and specific semantic content for the relevant public given that it refers to a public figure of international reputation, known by most well-informed, reasonably observant and circumspect persons, as has been pointed out in paragraph 51 above, whereas the earlier mark has no particular semantic meaning. Furthermore, the reputation of the singer and actress Miley Cyrus is such that it is not plausible to consider that, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, the average consumer, confronted with the mark MILEY CYRUS designating the goods and services in question, will disregard the meaning of that sign as referring to the name of the famous singer and actress and perceive it principally as a mark, among other marks, of such goods and services (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 September 2020, EUIPO v Messi Cuccittini, C‑449/18 P and C‑474/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:722, paragraph 36). It follows that the conceptual differences existing in the present case between the marks at issue are such as to counteract the visual and phonetic similarities set out in paragraphs 44 to 46 above>, §§ 61-63

Sulla genericità (apparente) di marchio denominativo

Interessante decisione sul marchio denominativo “IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS” per Classi 18, 25, 29, 30 and 32 della classificazione di Nizza, emessa da Trib. UE 20.01.2021, T-253/20, Oatly AB c. EUIPO. (di seguito solo : T.). Presente soprattutto due profili di interesse.

Era stata negata la registrazione per prodotti in classe 29 (caseari …), 30 (dolci biscotti etc.) e 32 bevande etc., § 6, sulla base dell’art. 7.1.b in connessione all’art. 7.2 del reg. 2017/1001 (carenza di distintività).

Il T. ricorda che la funzione protetta è quella distintiva, § 20.

Basta anche un minimo grado di distintività, § 22.

I criteri per il giudizio di distintività sono uguali per ogni clase merceologica, anche se la percezione nel pubblico può variare , § 25.

Il contenuto elogiativo non per questo priva il marchio di distintività , potendola mantenere assieme alla sua valenza promozionale (da noi : art. 13.1.a c.p.i.). E’ il primo profilo di interesse : la possibilità di convivenza dei due aspetti. Osserva il T.: <<consequently, a trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan must be regarded as being devoid of any distinctive character if it is liable to be perceived by the relevant public only as a mere promotional formula. By contrast, and according to settled case-law, such a mark must be recognised as having distinctive character if, apart from its promotional function, it may be perceived immediately by the relevant public as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services concerned >, § 28

Circa l’individuazione del parametro soggettivo (consumatore di riferimento) si tratta della english speaking people: e cioè solo quella degli stati ove tale lingua è lingua ufficiale e non di quelli ove, pur non essendolo, è tuattavia lingua largamente conosciuta, § 35

Infine (l’altro profilo di interesse) il messaggio veicolato dal marchio denominativo (sostituto del latte ma privo degli effetti nocivi talora prodotti dal latte) è sufficientemente distintivo. Infatti la contrappoitzione tra la prima parte (è come il latte) e la seconda (ma non ne ha gli svantaggi) porta a tale conclusione. In altra parole il marchio de quo <<conveys a message which is capable of setting off a cognitive process in the minds of the relevant public making it easy to remember and which is consequently capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from goods which have another commercial origin. The mark applied for therefore has the minimum degree of distinctive character required by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001>>, §§ 46 e 48.

Affermazione di una certa importanza e foriero di sviluppi futuri: se si genera un processo cognitivo facilitante la memorizzazione, si genera anche distintività ai sensi delle disposizioni de quibus.