TikTok versus fikfok

EUPIO 1 maart 2023, IEF 21273; Oppositie nummer B 3 160 450 (TikTok tegen fikfok) Dit gaat over een oppositie die is ingediend tegen een aanvraag voor een Europees Unie-woordmerk 'fikfok' op basis van twee eerdere merken 'TikTok' en 'TIK TOK'. Er wordt een beroep gedaan op artikel 8 (1) (b) EUTMR met betrekking tot het eerdere merk 'TikTok'. Er zal eerst worden gekeken naar de oppositie met betrekking tot het eerdere handelsmerk 'TikTok'. De oppositie heeft betrekking op goederen die in klasse 20 zijn vermeld, waaronder meubels, tijdschriftenrekken en kledingkasten. De betwiste goederen zijn ook in klasse 20 en omvatten bagagerekken, kantoormeubilair, bankstellen, tafels, kledingkasten, planken, opslagplanken, opblaasbaar meubilair en matrassen. In deze zaak wordt onderzocht of er sprake is van verwarringsgevaar tussen de woordmerken 'TikTok' en 'fikfok' in een oppositieprocedure voor de registratie van het laatstgenoemde merk. De gemiddelde consument van de betreffende goederen wordt geacht redelijk geïnformeerd en oplettend te zijn, en de mate van aandacht kan variëren afhankelijk van de gespecialiseerde aard, frequentie van aankoop en prijs van de goederen. Onder het Duitstalige deel van het publiek van de Europese Unie is sprake van een risici op verwarring. Het feit dat dit slechts voor een deel van het publiek verwarrend is, is voldoende om het betwiste merk af te keuren. De oppositie is daarom succesvol op basis van artikel 8 (1) (b) van de EU-handelsmerkverordening. Er is sprake van een risico op verwarring; de oppositie slaagt.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

Likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, considering all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. This appreciation depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the degree of recognition of the trade marks on the market, the association that the public might make between the marks, and the degree of similarity between the signs and between the goods (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).

Account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26). Even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T-443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, § 54).

The goods are partly identical and partly similar. They target the public at large and the professional public, whose degree of attentiveness varies from average to high. The degree of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal.

The signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree, while the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs. Considering the similarities and differences between the signs described in detail in section c), their overall impressions on the relevant public will be similar. The differences between the marks will be insufficient to counteract the commonalities between them. Therefore, the relevant public, who must rely on their imperfect recollection of the signs, may easily confuse them or believe that the goods found to be identical or similar originate from the same or economically linked undertakings. This also applies to consumers who display a high degree of attention.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Germanspeaking part of the 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 EUTM registration No 18 184 341. 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 enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing mark due to its extensive use and/or reputation as claimed by the opponent. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

As the earlier EUTM registration No 18 184 341 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 no need to examine the other earlier right invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T-342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268). Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.