Gewoonlijk gekocht op zicht
Gerecht EU 20 oktober 2011 zaak T-238/10 (Staphanie Scatizza tegen OHIM / Manuel Jacinto Lda)
Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerken. Oppositieprocedure. Aanvraag voor Gemeenschapsbeeldmerk Horse Couture tegenover ouder Portugees beeldmerk HORSE (beiden voor ´lederwaren en zadels´. Relatieve weigeringsgrond: verwarringsgevaar en overeenstemmende tekens. Visuele element is niet, ook niet tussen beeldmerken, bepalend. In dit geval echter, gezien dat de goederen gewoonlijk worden gekocht 'op zicht;, maakt visuele aspect van groter belang in algehele onderzoek naar verwarringsgevaar. Er is dus wel verwarringsgevaar te duchten.
46. The argument that the visual aspect of the comparison is decisive must be rejected. Admittedly, according to settled case‑law, in the context of the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the visual, phonetic or conceptual aspects of the signs at issue do not always have the same weight and it is appropriate then to examine the objective conditions under which the marks may be present on the market (...). Thus, if the goods covered by a given mark are sold only on oral request, the phonetic aspects of the sign in question are bound to have greater significance for the relevant public than the visual aspects (...). By contrast, the degree of phonetic similarity between two marks is of less importance in the case of goods which are marketed in such a way that the relevant public, when making a purchase, usually perceives visually the mark designating those goods (...).
47 However, in the present case, even if it is assumed that the goods concerned are habitually bought ‘on sight’ and that the visual aspect is, as a result, of greater importance in the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, such a finding would still be fully justified because, as was noted in paragraph 32 above, the marks at issue indeed also display a degree of visual similarity. In any event, it must be held that the degree of similarity between the marks at issue is such (see paragraph 43 above) as to lead to the conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists irrespective of whether or not the visual aspect is more important than the other aspects.
48 Indeed, the visual differences between the marks at issue are offset by the fact that the marks are conceptually identical and phonetically similar, and also by the identity or similarity of the goods concerned. Therefore, the differences between the marks are not sufficient to remove a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the relevant public.
