Log in

CLASS 46


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.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
TUESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2010
Bottle shock: Artesa Napa Valley v. Arteso

In its judgment T-35/08, the General Court confirmed that were was likelihood of confusion in the meaning of Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR for identical goods in Class 33, namely wines, between the following signs:

     

Earlier sign

 

Contested CTM 

In disagreement with the 4th Board of appeal’s analysis regarding the visual comparison, it held that the similar word element ARTESA/ARTESO in the two marks does not constitute the dominant element and that the signs differ greatly in shape, size and colour of their graphic element. The word element 'Napa Valley’, given its position and size of letters, is a secondary element.

Nevertheless, there is a strong phonetic similarity since Napa Valley, for the English-speaking consumer, is perceived as an indication of geographical origin of the goods and not as a distinctive element, the consumer will merely say the word 'Artesa'.

Conceptually, the representation of a centaur straddled by a rider carrying a staff with amphorae alludes to the mythical origins of wine and its production in the earlier sign. It cannot be said that the contested sign alludes to an idea of modernity which will immediately be grasped by the public; thus there are no perceptible conceptual connotations which establishes a difference or similarity between the signs.

In the wines sector, in particular bars and restaurants, the products are primarily ordered orally after having seen their name on the wine list, thus greater weight will be attributed to phonetic similarity.

Furthermore, even if it is clear that the contested goods are produced in Napa valley (try claiming it is not indication of origin with the following good description “wines produced and bottled in Napa Valley (California, USA)), there may be likelihood of confusion even where the public perception is that goods are produced in different places.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 11.48
Tags: wine, General Court, Article 8 (1) b),
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2120
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






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365
POST ADDRESS

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester
LE4 9HA

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox