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.
Who we all are...
FRIDAY, 15 JUNE 2012
General Court: JUMPMAN v. JUMP
In Case T-233/10, the applicant Nike International Ltd registered the sign JUMPMAN for goods in Class 25 which was opposed by Intermar Simanto Nahmias on the basis of earlier Spanish and Community marks JUMP registered in class 25.
The Opposition Division and Board of Appeal upheld the opposition on the basis of the earlier Spanish word mark. The relevant public is the general public in Spain. The goods in Class 25 covered by the signs at issue are identical, since the contested goods are included in the broad categories covered by the earlier mark. The earlier mark has distinctive character which will not be understood by the Spanish public and will be perceived as fanciful term.
The signs at issue are visually and phonetically similar. A conceptual comparison is not relevant in the present case since the signs at issue are composed of ‘fanciful terms’ and it is ‘unlikely that the average Spanish consumer will understand the meaning of the English word “jump”’. However, if part of the public understands the meaning of the word“jump”, then the marks at issue have a conceptual similarity to the extent that they share this term. The General Court therefore confirmed that there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue on the part of the relevant public.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 14.43
general court, likelihood of confusion, jumpman, jump, Nike, spanish consumer,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
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