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, 25 OCTOBER 2011
General Court: who can see more clearly now?

In case T-501/08, the General Court upheld the likelihood of confusion between the figurative trade mark applied for SEE MORE and the earlier Danish and Finish word marks C-MORE for the goods ‘ the computer accessories, in particular for monitors’ in Class 9.

Firstly, the relevant public consisted of the general public of Denmark and Finland who generally showed an average level of attention. Next, the goods covered by the earlier marks were identical to those covered by the trade mark application.

As regards the comparison of the signs, visually there is a low degree of similarity between the marks at issue, in so far as they did not contain the same number of letters and the mark applied for comprised a stylised depiction of a screen represented by a blue casing surrounding the word ‘see’. The Board of Appeal also considered that the dominant element of the contested mark, namely the verbal element ‘see more’ was phonetically and conceptually identical to the earlier marks CMORE. Since the two signs at issue contain the word ‘more’ and the letter ‘c’ of the earlier marks, CMORE will probably be associated by a significant part of the general public in Denmark and Finland with an abbreviation or misspelling of the verb ‘to see’ in English in view of the common practice of sending SMS, the Board of Appeal correctly considered that the relevant public would perceive, in the signs at issue, the concept as ‘see more’.

Taking account of the visual similarly and the phonetical and conceptual identity between the marks at issue, as well as the fact that the goods were identical, the Board of Appeal correctly found that a likelihood of confusion between the marks could not be excluded.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 18.03
Tags: general court, likelihood of confusion, see more, cmore,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2601
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