Risico op verwarring met eerder geregistreerd EU-merk 'HAVANA CLUB'

EUIPO 19 februari 2023, IEF 21254; Opposition No B 3 159 459 (Havana Club Holding S.A. tegen No. 1 Capital AB) Havana Club Holding had een Europees merk geregistreerd voor 'HAVANA CLUB' voor alcoholische dranken in klasse 33. No.1 Capital AB diende een aanvraag in voor een Europees merk voor 'HAVÄN' voor dezelfde producten in dezelfde klasse. Het eerste bedrijf diende een oppositie in op grond van de kans op verwarring tussen de twee merken. Ondanks het verschil in betekenis, oordeelde de rechter dat de overeenkomst tussen de merken op het gebied van klank en visuele gelijkenis voldoende was om een risico op verwarring te vormen. Omdat de producten ook identiek zijn, werd de oppositie gegrond verklaard en werd de registratie van het tweede merk afgewezen.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

(...)

It is true that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is considered to be less than normal. However, this cannot call into question the finding of the likelihood of confusion. Although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account in assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment. Consequently, even in a case involving an earlier mark with a weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a similarity of the signs and the services (13/12/2007, T-134/06, PAGESJAUNES.COM, § 70). In the present case, the goods are identical, and the overall impression of the marks is similar due to the coincide in the identical letters ‘HAV(*)N’ at the beginnings of the signs which catches the consumer’s attention first (15/12/2009, T-412/08, Trubion, § 40; 25/03/2009, T-109/07, Spa Therapy, § 30). Moreover, the beginning of the earlier mark is aurally identical to the sole verbal element of the contested sign, which is particularly relevant for the relevant goods as these are often ordered aurally. The differences of the signs do, therefore, not allow to safely distinguish them and are consequently not sufficient to exclude the risk that public may believe that the identical goods come from the same or economically-linked undertaking.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion at least on a non-negligible part of the Spanish-speaking public. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application. Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 5 414 917, and it follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods. Since the opposition is successful on the basis of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is no need to assess the opponent’s claim of enhanced degree of distinctiveness. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness. As European Union trade mark registration No 5 414 917 leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods against which the opposition was directed, there is also no need to examine the other earlier rights and ground invoked (16/09/2004, T-342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L.).