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
SUNDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2011
General Court: PPT v. PPTV

In Judgment T-118/07, the Court confirmed there was no likelihood of confusion between word mark PPT and earlier Portuguese mark , standing for Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão.

PPTV had contested the findings of the BoA on the relevant public, the Court confirmed that it is composed of the business public for ‘video cassette distribution services on a revenue sharing or use fee basis and the distribution of video tapes’, despite the fact that internet enables DVD’s or video cassettes to be ordered via the internet, the average consumer is neither the ordinary recipient nor ordinary user; and of the average Portuguese consumer for the rest of the goods in Class 41.

The Court confirmed remote similarity between 'rental services for video and DVD' with ther earlier mark’s goods, which although different in nature and purpose, are normally used for the provision of and are a means of making ‘education, entertainment and information concerning sporting and cultural activities’ available to the public. However, the contested distribution services are not complementary nor are intended for the same public, so they cannot be regarded as substitutable for the earlier goods.

Since the earlier mark covers televised entertainment services, the last two letters of the word element of that mark – ‘T’ and ‘V’ – will be perceived by the relevant public as the abbreviation of the word ‘television’; the figurative element of a striped ball within a square is not dominant but cannot be regarded as totally negligible. Thus, the earlier mark has a clear and specific conceptual dimension for the relevant public, whilst the mark applied for does not, which counteracts the phonetic and visual similarities resulting from the sequence of letters (‘PPT’) which the marks at issue have in common.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 14.20
Tags: General court; likelihood of confusion,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2257
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