Geslaagde oppositie tegen registratie van NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE als EU merk

EUIPO 18 februari 2023 IEF 21263; Oppositie nummer 3 155 717 (Impossible Foods tegen Nothing is Impossible) In deze zaak is er oppositie ingesteld tegen de registratie van een EU-handelsmerk op basis van een eerdere registratie. De beoordeling van de oppositie omvat een globale beoordeling van de verwarringwekkende gelijkenis tussen de merken en de goederen en diensten die zij vertegenwoordigen. Bij het beoordelen van de distinctiviteit van de eerdere registratie, is gebleken dat deze slechts een normaal niveau van distinctiviteit heeft. De goederen zijn gedeeltelijk identiek en gedeeltelijk vergelijkbaar met verschillende gradaties van aandacht van de consument. De merken zijn visueel en auditief in een gemiddelde mate vergelijkbaar en conceptueel in ieder geval in een gemiddelde mate vergelijkbaar. Op basis van het imperfecte geheugen van consumenten en de onderlinge afhankelijkheid van de relevante factoren, is het waarschijnlijk dat consumenten de twee merken associëren op basis van hun gemeenschappelijke onderscheidende element, ondanks enkele verschillen tussen de merken. Op grond van deze analyse is er een waarschijnlijkheid van verwarring op een aanzienlijk deel van het Franstalige en Spaanstalige publiek. Daarom wordt de oppositie op basis van artikel 8(1)(b) van de EUTM-verordening volledig toegewezen en is er geen verdere analyse nodig van andere gronden van de oppositie.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
A global assessment of a likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular, similarity between the trade marks and between the goods or services. Accordingly, a greater degree of similarity between the goods may be offset by a lower degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (22/06/1999, C 342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 20; 11/11/1997, C 251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24; 29/09/1998, C 39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

The earlier mark has a normal degree of distinctiveness. The goods are partly identical and partly similar to varying degrees and target the general and professional public whose degree of attention is average to higher than average.
Account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C‐342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

The signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree and conceptually similar to an at least average degree. The earlier mark is fully reproduced in the contested sign as a distinctive element. Bearing in mind the consumer’s imperfect recollection and the interdependence principle, consumers are likely to notice the distinctive element ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ and associate the marks based on their common distinctive element. Therefore, the differences between the signs are not sufficient to outweigh their similarities.

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

The Opposition Division has taken this principle into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion and the fact that some of the services are similar to a low degree cannot offset the visual and aural similarities identified between the signs.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on a substantial part of the French- and Spanish-speaking part of the public. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

As the earlier right No 17 924 675 leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods and services against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier rights invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T-342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268).

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other grounds of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.