HELIX vs HELIX TECHNOLOGY

BBIE 7 maart 2023, IEF 21304; Decision opposition 2017705 (HELIX tegen HELIX TECHNOLOGY) De opposant heeft oppositie ingesteld tegen de inschrijving van het woordmerk HELIX TECHNOLOGY. De oppositie is gebaseerd op Uniemerkinschrijving van het woordmerk HELIX. In deze zaak heeft het Bureau vastgesteld dat het onderscheidende deel van de betrokken handelsmerken identiek is. Hoewel de goederen en diensten slechts in geringe mate vergelijkbaar zijn, heeft het Bureau een waarschijnlijkheid van verwarring tussen de handelsmerken vastgesteld omdat ze visueel en auditief zeer vergelijkbaar zijn, en een deel van het publiek mogelijk geen conceptuele vergelijking kan maken. Het Bureau heeft rekening gehouden met de gemiddelde consument, die een normaal niveau van aandacht heeft en afhankelijk is van onvolmaakte indrukken. De beschrijvende aard van een woord in een van de handelsmerken is overwogen, maar het heeft de hoge mate van gelijkenis tussen de handelsmerken niet tenietgedaan. Daarom wordt de oppositie toegewezen.

55. The global assessment must be made by reference to the average consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect about the goods or services in question. However, account must be taken of the fact that the average consumer only rarely has the opportunity to make a direct comparison between the different trademarks but relies on the imperfect impression left upon him. It must also be borne in mind that the average consumer's level of attention may vary depending on the type of goods or services at issue. The relevant public for the relevant goods and services consists of both the public at large with an average level of attention and professionals with a higher level of attention. For his reason, the lowest level of attention must be taken into account, which means that the public is deemed to have a normal level of attention.

57. Defendant argues that the distinctive character of ‘helix’ is weak, because it refers to ivy (see paragraph 16). However, the Office finds that the word ‘helix’ is not descriptive for the goods and services for which a low degree of similarity has been established. Furthermore, part of the public will perceive ‘HELIX’ as a fantasy name (see paragraph 43). In this context, the Office notes that confusion among part of the public is sufficient to assign the opposition. In addition, the Office finds that the word ‘technology’ in the contested sign is merely descriptive. Generally, the public will not consider a descriptive element forming part of a complex mark as the distinctive and dominant element of the overall impression conveyed by that mark. Therefore, the distinctive part of the signs concerned is identical.

58. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion presupposes a certain coherence between the factors to be considered and, in particular, between the similarity of the conflicting signs and the goods or services to which they relate. Thus, a low degree of similarity between the goods or services in question may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the signs, and vice versa.

59. In this case the conflicting signs are visually and aurally highly similar. For part of the public, a conceptual comparison is not an issue. The goods and services are similar to a low degree.

60. On the basis of these factors and the other factors mentioned above, and considering their interdependence, the Office considers that, despite the low degree of similarity between the goods and services, there is a likelihood of confusion in the sense that the public may believe that the services designated by the trademark invoked and the goods against which the opposition is directed originate from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from undertakings which are economically linked.