Beroep m.b.t. beeldmerk van '3D' en '3D's' afgewezen

Gerecht EU 13 september 2016, IEF 16257; IEFBE 1933; ECLI:EU:T:2016:463 (Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV - EUIPO) Merkenrecht. Afwijzing van het beroep omtrent beeldmerk voor graanproducten met woordelement 3D. Het ging om een beroep door de aanvrager van het beeldmerk met het woordelement “3D” voor waren in klasse 30 tegen de toegewezen oppositie door de houder van het beeldmerk met het woordelement “3D’s” ook ingeschreven voor waren in klasse 30. Het beroep wordt afgewezen en het gaat in deze zaak om verwarringsgevaar. De waren stemmen volgens het GEU minder dan gemiddeld overeen. De snacks hebben niet hetzelfde doel en niet dezelfde productiewijze. Verder is er geen spraken van concurrentie. Beide elementen bevatten ‘3D’ en stemmen daarom visueel overeen. Daarnaast stemmen de merken ook fonetisch overeen, ondanks de kleine verschillen. Verder staan beide merken voor driedimensionaliteit.

76 In any event, the finding of weak distinctive character for the earlier EU trade marks does not prevent a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion. While the distinctive character or the earlier EU trade marks must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one of a number of elements entering into that assessment. Thus, even in a case involving an earlier EU trade mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered (see judgment of 13 December 2007, Xentral v OHIM — Pages jaunes (PAGESJAUNES.COM), T‑134/06, EU:T:2007:387, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited).

77 In the present case it has been established, in paragraph 69 above, that the signs at issue were highly similar and, in paragraph 56 above, that the degree of similarity between the goods at issue in the present case was lower than average. Furthermore, the relevant consumer will show a relatively low degree of attention when purchasing these everyday consumer goods. Therefore, on the basis of these various factors and notwithstanding the distinctiveness of the earlier EU trade marks, it must be held that the Board of Appeal was right to find that there was a likelihood of confusion.

78 In the light of all the foregoing, the single plea in law must be rejected and, therefore, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without it being necessary to rule on the admissibility of the applicant’s first head of claim, in so far as it requests that the Court grant its application for registration of an EU trade mark for the goods at issue.

Costs

79 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)
hereby:
1.      Dismisses the action;
2.      Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs.