Het hoofd van een katachtige
GvEA, 6 mei 2008, zaak T-246/06, Redcats SA tegen OHIM / Manuel Revert & Cía, SA (nog geen Nederlandse versie beschikbaar).
Oppositieprocedure. Aanvraag Gemeenschapswoordmerk REVERIE (voor, kort gezegd, bedden en beddengoed), oppositie o.g.v. ouder Gemeenschapsbeeldmerk Revert (voor o.a. bedtextiel). Oppositie toegewezen. Een samenvatting in citaten:
“37. In the present case, the marks at issue are, on the one hand, a figurative mark comprising a representation of the head of a feline, probably a tiger, viewed in profile and standing out in white against a square black background, with, to its right, aligned with the top of the figurative element, the word ‘revert’, presented in a rectangular shape, underlined and printed in relatively spaced-out capital letters, both of which elements take up an equivalent amount of space, and, on the other hand, a word mark, REVERIE.
32. As the parties have conceded that the goods in question are similar or identical, only the marks at issue have to be compared
(…) 38. Thus, although the figurative element of the earlier mark occupies as large a space within that mark as the word element and stands out visually because of its contrasting black and white colours, the fact none the less remains that it is difficult to perceive. The animal represented is not easily identifiable. By contrast, the word element of the earlier mark is both immediately perceptible, because it is underlined and is clearly separate from the figurative element, and immediately comprehensible, because it is both short and written in spaced-out capital letters in a font which is very easy to read.
(…) 43. First, the first five letters of the word element of the earlier mark are identical to the first five letters comprised in the mark applied for. In addition, the letter ‘t’, which is the last letter in that word element, is not markedly visually different from the letter ‘i’, which is the sixth letter of the mark applied for. Furthermore, the mark applied for contains only one letter more than the word element of the earlier mark. Secondly, as was stated above, although the figurative element of the earlier mark unquestionably produces a certain visual impression, that element is too difficult to perceive to dominate the image of that mark which the relevant public will keep in mind. That element alone is not sufficient to establish the existence of differences capable of counterbalancing the visual similarity of the marks at issue which stems from the very great similarity between the word element of the earlier mark and the mark applied for.
44. It follows that the Board of Appeal was right to find that ‘despite the presence of some differences, the conflicting signs are visually similar’.
45. As regards the phonetic and conceptual comparisons of the marks at issue, it must be stated at the outset, that, contrary to what the applicant submits, those comparisons must be made with regard to all the languages spoken by the relevant public, that is to say, in the present case, all the Community languages (see paragraph 31 above), and not with regard only to French and English.
47. Lastly, as regards the likelihood of confusion, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraphs 22 to 24 of the contested decision, that the marks at issue, ‘each considered as a whole’, were ‘similar both visually and phonetically, at least in Germany, Austria and Spain’ and that, considering the identity of the goods at issue, there was a likelihood of confusion in Germany, Austria and Spain.
48. (…) Therefore, the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion inter alia in Germany and Austria.
Lees het arrest hier.
