Een identieke opvolging van medeklinkers

GvEA, 21 Oktober 2008, zaak T-95/07, Aventis Pharma SA tegen OHIM / Nycomed GmbH (Nederlandse vertaling nog niet beschikbaar).

Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprocedure op grond van ouder Benelux woordmerk PREZAL tegen gemeenschapsmerkaanvraag woordmerk PRAZOL (farmaceutische producten / medicijnen). GvEA vernietigt beslissing OHIM en wijst de oppositie toe.

“55. The applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s assessment that, given the fact that the relevant public must be deemed to be relatively attentive and that there is a clear phonetic difference between the signs in question, which outweighs their low level of visual similarity, it is unlikely that the relevant public would consider that the goods in question come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings, with the result that there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in dispute.

56. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, reached by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 12 of the contested decision, is based on a false premiss, namely that there are significant phonetic differences between the signs which outweigh the low degree of visual similarity between the marks in dispute. That assessment cannot however be accepted, since, as pointed out in paragraphs 42, 49 and 52 above, the signs in dispute are visually and phonetically very similar. The fact that the relevant public consists of end-consumers amongst others, whose level of attention can be considered to be above average, is not sufficient, given the identical nature of the goods concerned and the similarity of the signs in dispute, to rule out the possibility that those consumers might believe that the goods come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.

57. Accordingly, and contrary to the finding in the contested decision, a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public cannot be ruled out in the present case.

58. Therefore, the single plea in law raised by the applicant must be accepted and the contested decision annulled.”

Lees het arrest hier.