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.
 
  THURSDAY, 28 JUNE 2012
General Court rejects Cosmo's appeal

In Case T-344/09, Vida Estética, SL registered the trademark COSMOBELLEZA for the following services in Class 35: ‘Organization of exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes’ and in Class 41: ‘Training, education and entertainment, organization of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes, organization and conducting of seminars, business management and organization’.

Hearst Communications, Inc., brought an opposition on the grounds of Article 8 (1) (a) and (b), (4) and (5) of the CTMR on the basis of its earlier rights, among others : national, international word marks and trademanes COSMOPOLITAN, COSMO, COSMO TEST, with effect in UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Austria as well as figurative marks for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 38, 39 and 41

The OHIM and the General Court held that the opposition must fail, even if the earlier signs possessed ‘enhanced distinctiveness through reputation or extensive use’, or were well known within the meaning of Article 8(2)(c) CTMR.

First, the markets and their respective consumers did not overlap so the mark applied for would not be perceived as forming part of a series of marks owned by the applicant.

Second, the Office and the Court carried out a comparison between the mark applied for and the various earlier rights. Conceptually, it was impossible to carry out a comparison of the signs at issue in Germany, where they would have no obvious meaning and be perceived as fanciful. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, the earlier sign had a meaning, namely, that of a person who ‘is worldly and familiar with other places and customs’. That conceptual difference would heighten the dissimilarity of the signs. Lastly, in Spain and France, the sign applied for would evoke the idea of ‘cosmic beauty’, while the earlier sign would also be perceived as describing a person who ‘is worldly and familiar with other places and customs’. Therefore in those countries, the distance between the signs was increased because of their conceptual differences. Further, it has not been demonstrated that the initial part of the marks at issue, namely ‘cosmo’, constitutes their dominant element; the term ‘belleza’ (which means “beauty” in Italian) will not be understood by most of the relevant public.

Thus, the GC found that the earlier signs, taken overall, and the mark applied for were dissimilar and there could be no likelihood of confusion.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 18.33 
Tags: General court, Cosmopolitan, magazine, Cosmobelleza,

 

   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
3355 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
523 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
- 2012
     + December (24)
     + November (27)
     + October (23)
     + September (31)
     + August (30)
     + July (44)
     - June (24)
General Court rejects Cosmo's appeal
Poland: joint ownership of trade marks
Rioja for wine: from Spain to Argentina
July ETMR now available
General Court: Yakut v Yakult
Chocolate and crowns in General Court
IP TRANSLATOR: here's an instant response from OHIM
Stop press: IP Translator decision
Poland: clarification of the classification
General Court: Mesilette v Medinette
General Court: does college equal holidays
Trade Mark of the Day: Paul McCartney
General Court: O-live v Olive line
General Court: JUMPMAN v. JUMP
St Kilda tug-of-love goes on appeal
Moldova, EU sign GI pact
Poland: conflict of rights
Rioja: why is it such a big deal?
Santa Lucia appeal allowed in Malta
General Court: TORO XL v. XL
June ETMR now published
General Court: TM - wolf -TM
Balance in favour of New Balance in Danish battle with Bestseller
Poland: Columbus and Columbia compared
     + May (28)
     + April (34)
     + March (36)
     + February (20)
     + January (30)
+ 2011
+ 2010
+ 2009
+ 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