Zelfs wanneer onderscheidend vermogen is aangetoond
Gerecht EU 8 december 2011, Zaak T-586/10 (Aktieselkabet af tegen OHIM/Parfums Givenchy SA)
Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprocedure waar de aanvrager van gemeenschapsbeeldmerk 'only givenchy' tegenover houdster ouder gemeenschaps- en nationale woordmerken ONLY staat. Relatieve weigeringsgrond.
De analyse van het OHIM naar de soortgelijkheid van de tekens is juist uitgevoerd: 'low degree of visual similarity between the signs in question and no conceptual similarity between those signs'. Door de aanvrager wordt slechts bijzonder onderscheidend vermogen geclaimd bij het merk waarbij het niet gaat om identieke producten. Zij bepleit echter geen bijzonder onderscheidend vermogen daar waar het wel gaat om identieke goederen. Verwarringsgevaar wordt, zelfs wanneer het bijzonder onderscheidend vermogen van het merk is aangetoond, dan ook niet aangenomen, omdat het om andere waar gaat dan waarvoor de merken zijn ingeschreven. Gerecht EU wijst gevraagde voorziening af.
46 While it is settled case-law that the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, it should be noted that the likelihood of confusion presupposes that the signs and the goods or services covered are identical or similar, the reputation of a mark being a factor which must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the signs or between the goods or services is sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion (see, to that effect, Canon, cited in paragraph 17 above, paragraphs 22 and 24).
47 However, as is clear from the notice of opposition which appears in OHIM’s case-file, the applicant has claimed a reputation only as regards earlier Community trade mark No 638 833 and earlier Danish trade mark VR 2000 02183, which cover goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25, but has not claimed a reputation nor proved intensive use as regards earlier Danish trade mark VR 2001 03359, which concerns identical goods.
48 In those circumstances, as regards earlier Danish trade mark VR 2001 03359, in view of the weak distinctive character of the word ‘only’, resulting from the fact that it is commonly used in the English language and is easily understood, even by the non-English-speaking public, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion.
53 It follows that there can be no likelihood of confusion, since, even if the earlier marks had acquired a high degree of distinctiveness, the goods set out in paragraph 6 above designated by earlier Danish and Community trade marks VR 2000 02183 and No 638 833 are, as the Opposition Division had already stated, different from those covered by the mark applied for, so that one of the conditions of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, namely that the goods be similar, is not met.
54 It follows from all of the foregoing that the applicant’s first plea must be rejected.
