In Case T-112/09 Icebreaker Ltd v OHIM, Gilmar Ltd, the General Court ruled this morning that the average Italian consumer was likely to be confused between the word ICEBREAKER, for which the applicant sought registration as a Community trade mark, and the earlier Italian word trade mark ICEBERG.  Since the goods relating to each mark -- clothing, headgear and footwear -- were identical,  and the marks were similar, the Board of Appeal did not err in concluding that such a likelihood of confusion existed.

Some visual and aura; similarity was easy to find. As to conceptual similarity, the General Court observed with regard to the Board of Appeal's findings that

"... with regard to the part of the relevant public who do not understand English even at a basic level, it was impossible to make a conceptual comparison between the signs.  ... the part of the relevant public able to understand the word ICEBERG in its proper sense in English would also probably understand the word ICEBREAKER. [The Board of Appeal] indicated that, to a certain extent, those words differ in that one refers to ice and the other to a boat designed to break ice. It adds that it could also be claimed that the signs are similar on a conceptual level because an icebreaker is necessary during extreme weather, if there is a lot of ice, from which icebergs are formed. In that case, there is a connection between the word ‘iceberg’ in so far as it relates to drift ice from the North Atlantic waters in winter and the word ‘icebreaker’, which refers to a vessel designed to protect commercial boats from icebergs and other dangers. It considers that the question as to whether there is a common or different concept will thus vary in accordance with the people’s perception. It considers that it is thus safer to conclude that the conceptual comparison is not decisive and does not affect the visual and phonetic similarities or differences of the signs".