Verwarringsgevaar, dus geen toetsing aan 8(5) nodig

Gerecht EU 8 mei 2012, zaak T-244/10 (Tsakiris-Mallas/OHMI, inzake: Seven (7 Seven Fashion Shoes))

Europees Gemeenschapsmerk. In de oppositieprocedure komt aanvrager van het beeldmerk "7 Seven Fashion Shoes" (klasse 18 en 25) het Italiaans beeldmerk "7 Seven" en "Seven" tegen. De oppositieafdeling wijst de oppositie af, de kamer van beroep vernietigt de beslissing van de afdeling en wijst de aanvraag af voor klasse 18. Middel: ten onrechte is verwarringsgevaar aangenomen en heeft de Kamer niet onderzocht of artikel 8(5) al dan niet moest worden toegepast.

Het Gerecht EU bevestigt het verwarringsgevaar dat door de Kamer van beroep is vastgesteld. Er hoeft niet te worden bepaald of er sprake is van een bekend merk ex artikel 8(5), omdat er sprake is van verwarringsgevaar.

59 The Board of Appeal found that, in view of the fact that the goods covered by the marks at issue were identical and that those marks were similar, the relevant public may believe that the goods in question come from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings.

60 That conclusion does not contradict the finding made by the Board of Appeal regarding the degree of attention of the relevant public, which is only reasonably circumspect. In view of the fact that the goods covered by the marks at issue are identical and that those marks are visually, phonetically and conceptually similar (see paragraphs 46 to 57 above), the relevant public is likely to confuse the origin of the goods covered by the marks at issue.

64 It should be noted that, in paragraph 42 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal held that, since there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier marks so far as the goods covered are concerned, there was no need to determine whether Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 was applicable.