NaViKey - een variant van het ouder merk
Gerecht EU 13 oktober 2011, zaak T-393/09 (NEC Display Solutions Europe / OHMI - Nokia (NaViKey))
Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk. Aanvraag Gemeenschapswoordmerk NaViKey. Oppositieprocedure op basis van ouder gemeenschapswoordmerk NAVI. Relatieve weigeringsgrond: verwarringsgevaar. Plicht tot vermelding reden niet nagekomen, zo meent Nokia. Het verschil is dusdanig klein dat zelfs een "observant and circumspect public might think that the mark applied for is a variant of the earlier mark" Klacht geweigerd
Curia: Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de aanvrager van het woordmerk „NaViKey” voor waren van klasse 9 en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1143/20082 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 16 juni 2009 houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de weigering van de oppositieafdeling om dit merk in te schrijven in het kader van de oppositie ingesteld door de houder van het nationale en communautaire woordmerk „NAVI” voor waren en diensten van de klassen 9 en 38.
60 Given the high degree of similarity between the goods and services in question and the similarity between the signs in dispute, at least visually and phonetically, it must be held that there is a likelihood that the relevant public would not distinguish between the two signs in dispute, the only difference between them being the presence of the final syllable ‘key’ in the mark applied for. That difference is so slight that even an observant and circumspect public might think that the mark applied for is a variant of the earlier mark and that the goods and services in question therefore have the same commercial origin or come from economically-linked undertakings. Moreover, since, as was found at paragraph 52 above, the signs in dispute are visually similar, the applicant’s argument that the visual aspect should have played a more important role in the present case when the likelihood of confusion between the signs in dispute was assessed is entirely unfounded.
63 Moreover, although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion (see, by analogy, Canon, paragraph 24), it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment. Thus, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, on the one hand, and a trade mark applied for which is not a complete reproduction of it, on the other, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered (Case T‑112/03 L’Oréal v OHIM – Revlon (FLEXI AIR) [2005] ECR II-949, paragraph 61). The contrary argument would make it possible to register a mark, one of the elements of which was identical with or similar to those of an earlier mark with a weak distinctive character, even where the other elements of that mark were still less distinctive than the common element and notwithstanding a likelihood that consumers would believe that the slight difference between the signs designating those marks reflected a variation in the nature of the goods or stemmed from marketing considerations and not that it denoted goods from different traders (order of 27 April 2006 in Case C-235/05 P L’Oréal v OHIM, not published in the ECR, paragraph 45).
