Enkel sprake van opname van een woorddeel
Gerecht EU 13 juni 2012, zaak T-519/10 (Seikoh Giken tegen OHIM/Seiko HOldings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)
Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. In de oppositieprocedure komt de aanvrager van het beeldmerk SG SEIKOH GIKEN (klasse 3, 7 en 9) de houder van het gemeenschapswoordmerk SEIKO tegen. Door de oppositieafdeling wordt de oppositie toegewezen, het beroep wordt verworpen. Middel: Misleiding onjuist uitgelegd en toegepast.
Het Gerecht EU wijst de klacht af. Er is sprake van een geringe mate van overeenstemming tussen de merken SG Seikoh Giken en Seiko. Tevens concludeert het Gerecht EU dat er geen sprake is van verwarringsgevaar, nu er enkel sprake is van het opnemen van het woorddeel 'Seiko'.
32 Since the Board of Appeal found that the signs at issue had only a low degree of aural similarity on account of several differences, the applicant cannot claim that the Board of Appeal concluded that there was a low degree of similarity between the marks by merely taking the similar pronunciation of the word elements ‘seiko’ and ‘seikoh’ into account.
33 Finally, with regard to the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue, it should be noted that, in accordance with the case-law, conceptual differences between the marks at issue may be such as to counteract to a large extent the visual and phonetic similarities existing between those marks. Such a counteraction requires, however, at least one of the marks at issue to have, from the point of view of the relevant public, a clear and specific meaning, so that the public is capable of grasping it immediately, and the other mark to have no such meaning or an entirely different meaning (Case T 292/01 Phillips-Van Heusen v OHIM – Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel (BASS) [2003] ECR II 4335, paragraph 54).
34 In the present case, as the Board of Appeal corrected noted, neither of the signs has a clear and specific meaning. The applicant itself states in its application that the signs at issue have ‘[no] meaning in the languages of the EU’. Therefore, there was no need to compare the signs at issue on a conceptual level.
41 Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the Board of Appeal did not find that there was a likelihood of confusion solely on the ground that the element ‘seiko’ is included in the mark applied for. The Board of Appeal took into account the identical nature of the goods, the average degree of attention of the relevant public, which will have only an imperfect recollection of the marks at issue, and the similarity, albeit weak, of the signs at issue.
42 In the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was, in the present case, a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Op andere blogs:
Marques (General Court: Seikoh v. Seiko)
