Important visual and phonetic differences
Gerecht EU 28 september 2011, zaak T-356/10 (Nike International tegen OHIM / Deichmann (VICTORY RED)
Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprocedure. Aanvraag Gemeenschapswoordmerk VICTORY RED, ouder internationale en nationale woordmerk VICTORY. Relatieve weigeringsgrond: verwarringsgevaar en gelijke tekens. Beroep afgewezen.
Curia: Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep door de aanvrager van het woordmerk „VICTORY RED” voor waren van de klassen 18 en 28 ingesteld en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1309/2009-2 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 18 mei 2010 houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de weigering van de oppositieafdeling om dat merk in te schrijven in het kader van de oppositie ingesteld door de houder van het internationale en het nationale woordmerk „Victory” voor waren van de klassen 18, 25 en 28.
42 The Board of Appeal was therefore justified in holding that the term ‘victory’ was phonetically dominant within the mark applied for, taken as a whole, and, consequently, that the signs at issue were similar in that regard.
46 By contrast, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, and as the Board of Appeal correctly noted at paragraph 31 of the contested decision, it cannot be argued that the term ‘victory’ is indirectly descriptive or strongly suggestive of the goods at issue. At most, it may be held that it alludes to the efficiency of the sporting articles in question.
50 That conclusion cannot be brought into question by the case-law which the applicant cites in support of its submissions, in which the Court held that there were ‘important visual and phonetic differences’ in the way consumers perceive the marks ORO and ORO SAIWA, on the one hand, and SELEZIONE ORO Barilla, on the other hand, and that the mere presence of the word ‘oro’ was not capable of giving rise to similarity between those marks (Case T‑344/03 Saiwa v OHIM – Barilla Alimentare (SELEZIONE ORO Barilla) [2006] ECR II‑1097, paragraph 39).