Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  FRIDAY, 30 JANUARY 2009
ALDO S and ALDI are not similar

R-169096
The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports recent judgment of the District Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 December 2008, act signature VI SA/Wa 1601/08.

On July 4, 2002 Polish company Aldo sp. z o.o. applied for the trademark registration (Z-252456) for word-figurative mark ALDO S in classes 6, 19, 35, 37. The services indicated to operating a store and wholesalers with building materials. In 2005, The Polish Patent Office has issued a favourable decision and registered the submitted mark (R-169096).

German company Aldi Einkauf GmbH has opposed the registration. The opponent based its claims on two registrations. However, only the second of the presented trade marks - ALDI (R-173352) covered the contested class. This sign was also registered later in 2006 (the trade mark application was filled on June 11, 2002). After finding the opposition justified the The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office transformed it into the motion to cancel trade mark rights.

However, after parties submitted additional observations and after hearing oral arguments, The Board found that Aldi just started its business on the Polish market and does not offer or sell building materials so far. Aldo’s representative argued that the contested sign differs because of its figurative elements and due to small amount of letters and its ending there is no verbal similarity. Another argument presented that Aldo was using its sign since 1995 and there was no Aldi’s presence on the Polish market at this time. It was also noted that goods and services are aimed at the careful consumer so there is no risk in the association of the origin of such goods. Therefore, rhe PPO rejected the ALDI’s request in its decision of 26 February 2008 (case act signature Sp.148/07). The PPO noted that contested wholesales services are alike but goods sold by Aldo are being offered in special shops where Aldi’s products are available in hipermarkets. The Board also held that both marks are not similar because they differ visually and they sound differently.

The German company filed a complain before the District Administrative Court in Warsaw. In its complaint Aldi Einkauf still claimed that the disputed trade mark may lead to association with its brand. The German company alleged that the PPO wrongly assessed similarities. Aldi's representative argued that the verbal aspect has greater importance in word-figurative trade marks. The letter "S" is separated from the word Aldo. Therefore, this expression will be perceived by the public as a dominant. However, the Court dismissed Aldi's complaint. The DAC held that PPO provided a proper and complete assessment of the disputed signs. The Board compared them globally, and also referred to the verbal elements. The difference of even a single letter is a sufficient factor to distinguish these signs, in visual, phonetic and aural perspective -- said judge Ewa Marcinkowska, (the rapporteur).

The judgment is not final yet. The cassation complaint may be filed before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 13.02 
Tags: Poland, Polish courts, Polish Patent Office, Polish trade marks, similarity of marks, threshold for similarity,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3300 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
+ 2010
- 2009
     + December (44)
     + November (55)
     + October (49)
     + September (48)
     + August (39)
     + July (54)
     + June (54)
     + May (55)
     + April (54)
     + March (57)
     + February (48)
     - January (61)
German Federal Patent Court: "Die Drachenjäger"
ALDO S and ALDI are not similar
Bilateral treaty protects the name Retsina
Recent publication: la Revue des Marques
Forthcoming ECJ Opinion
Spain - "Mc" is not only for McDonald's.
Quiz: German fashion brands
Denmark: Supreme Court finds no LoC between MINIMAX and MINIMAL
France: decline in national trade marks filings for 2008
Germany: Valuation of brands
OHIM: official launch of new CTM e-filing on 2 February 2009
Prana Haus heads for ECJ ruling
Latest edition of "Alicante News": new e-filing system on its way
Textile name directive now recast
Car brands quiz
Values
Recent publications
BGH decides in "AdWord" cases
Denmark: Scope of protection of the trade mark TIVOLI
Recent CFI rulings
OHIM payments and bank charges -- again
L'Oréal v Bellure: date for AG's Opinion fixed
When OPTIMUM is sub-optimal
OHIM payments and bank charges
Bad news for Lithuanian cheese names
Germany: BGH "AdWord" decision coming soon
Logos
Spain – Delimiting the border between Trade Mark and Unfair Competition Laws.
Trade marks and the downturn seminar
Crazy Days
Poland: long way to confusion
3 million .eu domain names
Free-of-charge gifts and "genuine use": the ECJ speaks
7th annual CTM course coming soon
The company formerly known as Coke Cola Limited ...
Greece: Indirect rejection of the post-sale confusion doctrine?
Poland: angry about ads
Trade Mark application fuelling speculation on possible transfer of Cristiano Ronaldo
Successful East German brands
Poland: advertising of alcohol products
Germany: DPMA practice amendment in cases of insolvency proceedings against party in proceedings before the DPMA
Brands in Portugal: where 'old' is new
Italian court recognises "post sale confusion"
Poland: rock for all
Polish Pickenpack's problems
Poland: LA ESPANOLA
Establishment of a Factory
Agricultural Product Quality: MARQUES speaks out
OHIM User Satisfaction Survey coming up
Poland: is Hansa history?
Poland: protection of traditional nourishment
When 'Roma' can be deceptive
Austrian Patent Office: 'amended product range' for serv.ip
Poland: confusion around ARENDA
Poland: product's information in Polish
Poland: inspiration or plagiarism?
Spain – Selling wine under a fake Geographical Indication is an IP offence, but also a prosecutable fraud.
Marks consisting of initials
Will prosecco follow where Champagne led the way?
Recent publications
Two recent ECJ decisions
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors