Now in its twelfth 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.
Who we all are...
WEDNESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2013
General Court: MBP v. ip_law@mbp.
In Case T-338/09, Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte . Rechtsanwälte applied
in 1999 for the word mark MBP for services in Classes 35 and 42: ‘Business
advice’ and ‘Patent agent services; legal services; services of a representative
registered at the European Patent Office (European Patent Attorney);
consultancy, representation, providing of expertise and research (technical and
legal), in particular in the field of protection of industrial property
regarding patents, registered designs, registered effects, trademarks,
topography, plant varieties protection, copyright, employed inventors' rights
and protected privilege licences; administration of protected privileges
including fee monitoring; legal research concerning the protection of industrial
property, in particular research into international protected privileges;
technical consultancy; technical and legal translations’.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 19.59
General Court, likelihood of confusion, mbp, legal services,
MM. Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger et Volkmar Kruspig opposed
it on the basis of ip_law@mbp. registered for services in Class 42 “Lawyers'
offices” according to article 8(1) b) and 8 (4) of the CTMR read with Article 5
(2) of the Markengesetz on the basis of earlier commercial name “mbp.de”.
The Opposition Division rejected the opposition in its entirety. It found that
even though the services are highly similar for Class 42 and similar for Class
35, the comparison of the signs excludes a risk of confusion. Further, the
evidence filed does not demonstrate genuine use because dated 2000 and at the
most, demonstrates use of a website.
The Board of Appeal partly cancelled the OD’s decision and refused the CTM for
all services in Class 42. It held there was no similarity with Class 35
‘business service’ and Class 42 ‘lawyer’s offices’. The General Court confirmed
There is visual and aural similarity between the marks, at least for the public
in Germany and UK. IP will be considered as purely descriptive if understood as
Intellectual Property (the Court rejected the argument that it will be
understood as Internet Protocol), the symbol @ lacks distinctive character so
the earlier mark seems derived from the contested mark “MBP”
Therefore, for identical services, the BoA correctly concluded that there is a
likelihood of confusion due to the average distinctive character earlier mark,
even for the specialized public with a higher degree of attention. Said public
would have no difficulty in identifying the indication “IP llaw” as belonging to
the legal field and would perceive the earlier sign as a variant of the
contested CTM referring to particular specialized branch of MBP.
The General Court did not deem necessary to review the claim on whether the BoA
had correctly assessed whether the opponent had demonstrated (scarce) use of the
earlier trade name “mbp.de” (i.e.: only one webpage by way of “wayback machine”
was dated before 2000 and use on letterheads did not demonstrate use as a
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 46 Archive