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
SATURDAY, 14 JANUARY 2012
General Court: Ragolizia v FAVOLIZIA

In Judgment T-462/09, the General Court had to examine an appeal by German CTM Applicant August Storck KG, famous for its delicious sweets - and for TM lawyers those gave way to CTM judgments just as much as a treat such as here and here- against the Italian Opponent Radiotelevisione SpA (RAI) .

The GC confirmed the likelihood of confusion, on the grounds of Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR between the applied for mark RAGOLIZIA on the basis of earlier word mark FAVOLIZIA.

The applicant’s confectionery, pastry are identically contained in the list of goods of the earlier mark. The opponent’s confectionery are “sweets and other confections collectively”. It is a set of food items that are rich in sugar and may include substances rich in artificial sweeteners as well. Confectionery items include sweets, lollipops, candy bars, chocolate and other sweet items of snack foods. These form a broad category including the applicant’s chocolate and chocolate goods and are thus identical.

Both marks are word marks and consist of the same number of letters, nine. The marks have a similar structure: both marks share the letters “-AOLIZIA” and they differ in two letters; the first letter of the earlier mark is the letter “F”, while the first one of the contested mark is the letter “R”. Furthermore, the third letter of the earlier mark is the letter “V”, whereas the third one of the contested mark is the letter “g”. Thus there is a medium degree of visual and aural similarity.

From a conceptual point of view, even if part of the relevant EU public understands that ‘FAVO’ refers to the English word ‘favour’, the eventual conceptual difference which not be sufficient to avoid a risk of confusion.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 16.40
Tags: General Court, likelihood of confusion, ragolizia, favolizia,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2699
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