Yakult nog niet gebruikt voor bier

Gerecht EU 21 juni 2012, zaak T-276/09 (Kavaklidere-Europe tegen OHIM/Yakult Honsha (Yakut))

Gemeenschapsmerkenrecht. In de oppositieprocedure komt de aanvrager van het woordmerk Yakut (klasse 33, alcoholische dranken, geen bier) de houder van het gemeenschapsbeeldmerken Yakult, YAKULT en ouder niet-ingeschreven merk YAKULT (allen klasse 29 & 32, wel voor bier) tegen. Betreffende deze laatste twee merken wordt aangevoerd dat zij bekend zijn in alle EU-lidstaten. De oppositieafdeling wijst de oppositie toe, het beroep wordt verworpen. Middel: soortgelijkheid, visuele en fonetische overeenstemming en ongerechtvaardigd voordeel trekken uit, afbreuk doen aan onderscheidend vermogen/reputatie oppositiemerk.

Gerecht EU: wijst de klacht af. Het Gerecht stelt vast dat er een grote mate van gelijkheid tussen de 'bieren' van het oudere merk Yakult en de 'alcoholische dranken (geen bier)' van het aangevraagde merk Yakut bestaat. Verder oordeelt zij dat het in deze zaak niet uitmaakt dat het merk Yakult nog niet gebruikt wordt voor bier in de afgelopen vijf jaar. Vaststaat dat de tekens een hoge mate van visuele en fonetische gelijkheid hebben, er is een mogelijk verwarringsgevaar.

Vergelijking van de waren
31 That high degree of similarity is not called into question or lessened by the fact that there is only a low degree of similarity, or indeed none at all, between certain goods in the broad category of goods covered by the mark applied for, and also certain goods in one of the categories of goods covered by the earlier mark.

32 Therefore, the applicant’s arguments seeking to compare wine with beer or alcoholic beverages with sparkling wine are not relevant in the present case.

33 The same applies to the applicant’s argument that the mark Yakult has not yet been used for beer. This is because the goods to be compared are those set out in the respective lists of goods covered by the marks at issue, and not those which are or are not actually used (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 April 2008 in Case T 233/06 Casa Editorial el Tiempo v OHIM – Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO), not published in the ECR, paragraph 30).

34 Consequently, it must be held that there is a high degree of similarity between the goods in question.

Vergelijking van de tekens
48 Lastly, as regards the applicant’s argument concerning the figurative element of the earlier mark, that is to say, alleged red brackets surrounding the word element ‘yakult’ and the central position of that word element on bottles of probiotic milk beverages, the unavoidable conclusion is that that mark, as registered, does not claim any particular colour, does not state where the mark must be affixed to the goods and is in no way protected solely for the marketing of bottles of probiotic milk beverages.

49 Consequently, the signs at issue have a high degree of visual similarity.

50 From a phonetic point of view, as the Board of Appeal noted at paragraph 25 of the contested decision, the additional letter ‘l’ of the element ‘yakult’ of the earlier mark does not result, irrespective of which official language of the European Union serves as a reference point, in any noticeable difference in the pronunciation of that mark by the average consumer compared with that of the element ‘yakut’ of the mark applied for.

51 Therefore, there is also a high degree of phonetic similarity between the signs at issue.

Verwarringsgevaar
58 The applicant’s argument concerning the alleged marketing of the goods covered by the earlier mark in transparent plastic bottles of a specific shape is wholly unfounded, given that it does not at all follow from the registration of that mark that the goods that are marketed can be marketed only in that way (see paragraph 48 above).

59 Consequently, without it being necessary to examine the applicant’s arguments based, in the first plea, on Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, or, in the second plea, on Article 8(5) of that regulation, it must be held that the Board of Appeal acted correctly in concluding, in the contested decision, that there was a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.