Merkaanvraag NorthSeaGrid toch toegewezen, geen verwarring met NationalGrid

Gerecht EU 27 september 2018, IEF 17991; IEFbe 2748; ECLI:EU:T:2018:611 (TenneT tegen EUIPO en Ngrid) Merkenrecht. TenneT is nationale beheerder van elektriciteitstransmissienetten van Nederland. Ngrid is onder meer eigenaar van het elektriciteitstransmissiesysteem in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. TenneT heeft een registratie gedaan bij EUIPO van NorthSeaGrid. Ngrid is houdster van onder andere woord- en beeldmerken nationalgrid, bluegrid en greengrid. Ngrid heeft oppositie ingediend tegen de registratie van TenneT. De Kamer van beroep heeft geoordeeld dat er sprake is van verwarring en heeft het beroep toegewezen. TenneT is hiertegen in beroep gegaan. Het Gerecht oordeelt dat er geen sprake is van verwarringsgevaar. De conflicterende tekens zijn qua visuele, fonetische en conceptuele aspecten zwak vergelijkbaar voor het Engelstalige publiek. Voor wat betreft het niet-Engelstalige grote publiek, moet worden opgemerkt dat de betrokken waren en diensten identiek zijn en dat de conflicterende tekens visueel en fonetisch overeenstemmen met de aanwezigheid van het gemeenschappelijke element "grid". De verschillen tussen het aangevraagde merk enerzijds en het oudere beeldmerk en het oudere woordmerk anderzijds maken het echter mogelijk om uit te sluiten dat verwarringsgevaar is bij dat publiek. Het merk wordt geregistreerd.

4.      Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion
145    The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account, and in particular between the similarity of the marks and the similarity of the goods or services concerned. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, VENADO with frame and others, T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74).
146    As regards the English-speaking public, it must be held that, despite the identity of the goods and services in question, the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities of the signs at issue are not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of that section of the relevant public, which has a higher than average level of attention. Since that part of the relevant public will view the common element ‘grid’ as descriptive, it will have no difficulty in identifying the visual, phonetic and conceptual differences that characterise the signs at issue and which are linked, in particular, to the differences observed at the beginning of the signs at issue, namely the elements ‘northsea’ and ‘national’. Furthermore, the English-speaking general public will note the figurative element of the mark applied for which has inherent distinctiveness, which contributes to the visual differences between the signs and will reinforce, conceptually, the message conveyed by the element ‘northsea’.
147    As regards the non-English-speaking general public, it must be noted that, admittedly, the goods and services in question are identical and that the signs at issue have visual and phonetic similarities linked to the presence of the common element ‘grid’. However, the differences observed between the mark applied for, on the one hand, and the earlier figurative mark and earlier word mark, on the other hand, makes it possible to rule out the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of that public, which shows a high level of attention and takes time to study those marks.
148    The mark applied for can be distinguished from the earlier marks by the presence of the element ‘northsea’, which is highlighted in that mark. In addition, unlike the element ‘national’ in the earlier marks, the element ‘northsea’ has a normal distinctive character and a meaning which will be perceived and kept in mind by the non-English-speaking public. The element ‘northsea’, which will leave a particular impression on the relevant non-English-speaking public, will therefore support the essential function of the mark applied for, which is to guarantee to that part of the relevant public the identity of the origin of the goods and services designated by that mark by allowing it to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, that product or service from those of the intervener. Moreover, the figurative element of the mark applied for, which has an inherent distinctive character, reinforces the differences between the signs at issue. Thus, the differences observed between the mark applied for and the earlier marks, particularly as regards their respective initial parts, counteract the presence of the common element ‘grid’ which is at the end of their word element and is shorter than the first parts. Therefore, in the mark applied for, the word element ‘northseagrid’ will be remembered by the relevant public while, in the earlier marks, it is the element ‘grid’ which will be remembered. In addition, the finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier marks is not called into question by the level of distinctiveness of the earlier marks. As the Board of Appeal noted, the earlier marks have not acquired an enhanced degree of distinctiveness or a reputation as regards the non-English-speaking general public.
149    Moreover, with regard to the other marks relied on by the intervener in support of its opposition under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, it is not necessary to call into question the Board of Appeal’s finding that those other marks have a lower level of similarity in relation to the mark applied for than the earlier figurative mark and the earlier word mark. It should be added that, if the first part of the other marks invoked by the intervener had a greater distinctive character than the element ‘national’, such a finding would accentuate the differences between the signs at issue and would not change the assessment that the element ‘northsea’ of the mark applied for is highlighted and has normal distinctive character.
150    The Board of Appeal therefore acted correctly in excluding a likelihood of confusion, on the part of the English-speaking general public, between the mark applied for and the earlier marks for the goods and services in Classes 4 and 37 to 39 referred to in paragraph 5 above and for the services ‘administrative management of transport and distribution of electricity’ in Class 35.
151    By contrast, the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, on the part of the non-English-speaking general public, between the mark applied for and the earlier marks for the goods and services in Classes 4 and 37 to 39 referred to in paragraph 5 above and for the services ‘administrative management of transport and distribution of electricity’ in Class 35.
152    The applicant’s plea alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 must therefore be upheld.
153    In the light of all of the foregoing, paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested decision, which annuls, by reason of the existence of a likelihood of confusion, the Opposition Division’s decision inasmuch as it applies to ‘electrical energy’ in Class 4 and the services ‘administrative management of transport and distribution of electricity’ in Class 35, ‘construction and repair; installation services; all of the aforesaid services in particular relating to networks for transport and distribution of electricity’ in Class 37, ‘telecommunication services, in particular related to transport and distribution of electricity’ in Class 38 and ‘transport, distribution and storage, particularly of electricity’ in Class 39, must be annulled.
154    It will be for the Board of Appeal to take into consideration the grounds of the present judgment in its assessment of the other grounds of opposition put forward by the intervener.