Het teken Visual is te begrijpen
Gerecht EU 24 januari 2012, zaak T-260/08 (Indo Internacional tegen OHIM/Visual)
Kort: Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. Aanvrager van het woordmerk VISUAL MAP (klasse 44) komt in de oppositieprocedure het Franse woordmerk VISUAL tegen. De oppositieafdeling wijst de aanvraag in haar geheel af. Het beroep wordt verworpen. Het ingeroepen middel is: "geen verwarringsgevaar".
Gerecht EU stelt vast dat de Board of Appeal correct heeft geoordeeld betreft het verwarringsgevaar. De beslissing zegt niet dat het teken onderscheidend of niet-beschrijvend is, of dat het publiek het niet zal begrijpen. Er wordt geen monopolie gecreeërd voor het teken "VISUAL" ondanks het eerder ingeschreven beeldmerk (door aanvrager), omdat daarmee geen verwarring wordt veroorzaakt. Het Gerecht EU wijst het beroep af.
51 In that regard, and without its being necessary to rule on the admissibility of that decision, it must first be noted that there is no contradiction between that decision and the decision which is contested in the present case. Indeed, the contested decision, contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, in no way states that the term ‘visual’ has distinctive, or non-descriptive, character, or that that term would not be understood by the relevant public.
52 Secondly, it must be held that, while it is true that the parties to the proceedings, Visual and Indo Internacional, and the earlier mark on which the opposition is based, VISUAL, are the same in both cases, the fact none the less remains that the mark and the services in respect of which registration is sought are at least different in part from those in issue in the case which gave rise to the Opposition Division’s decision of 18 November 2008. In the present case, the mark applied for is the word mark VISUAL MAP and the services for which the registration had been sought are in Class 44, whereas, in the case which gave rise to the Opposition Division’s decision of 18 November 2008, the mark applied for was the figurative mark VISUAL MAP DEVELOPER and the goods in respect of which registration had been sought were in Classes 9 and 10.
53 Thirdly, it must be noted that, contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, the Opposition Division’s decision of 18 November 2008 demonstrates that no monopoly on the use of the term ‘visual’ was granted to Visual by the contested decision. Indeed, the applicant was able to register the figurative mark VISUAL MAP DEVELOPER because that sign featured, in the view of the Opposition Division, sufficient differences vis-à-vis the sign VISUAL to exclude any likelihood of confusion.
54 In the light of all the foregoing, the single plea, and therefore the present application, must be dismissed as being unfounded.
