Log in


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
General Court: Star foods v. Star snacks

In Case T-333/11, the General Court was faced with round 2 of an opposition between the following marks


Classes 29, 30, 32

Contested CTM

Classes 29, 30, 31

Earlier CTM's

In 2007, the Opposition Division had upheld the opposition. The OD decision was cancelled by the OHIM 4th Board of appeal (BoA) finding there was no likelihood of confusion (LOC).

In Judgment Star Foods I (T- 492/08) of 11 May 2010, the General Court had upheld the appeal, sending the parties back before OHIM, holding that the contested CTM and the earlier word mark shared some visual and aural similarity and were strongly similar from a conceptual point of view,

By decision of 15 April 2011, the 4th Board of Appeal stood by its original findings and held that even for similar or identical goods, except for ‘beers’ in Class 32, there was no likelihood of confusion. In particular, it held that from a conceptual point of view, the coincidence in the meaning between the terms ‘food’ and ‘snack’, could not lead to a confusion, since the consumer could not attribute a common commercial origin to these generic words.

The Opponent Nicolas Wessang appealed claiming that the second BoA decision was contrary to Star Foods I on two grounds.

Firstly, the General Court held that in its previous judgments it had only compared the signs but had not carried out the global assessment of likelihood of confusion, which is why it remanded the parties before OHIM. Thus, it dismissed the first ground by stating that the Board had not erred by finding an absence of LOC.

However, the BoA did err by holding that the signs were not highly conceptual similar because composed of the generic terms. The BoA was bound by the holding in Star Foods I that the marks are globally similar, including from a conceptual point of view.

Thus the GC cancelled the contested decision and upheld the opposition, except for the dissimilar goods ‘beers’.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 07.40
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, star foods, star snacks,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3000
Reader Comments: 1
Post a Comment

Submitted By:
12 October 2012 @ 10.24
One may add that the opposition was also based on the earlier word mark "STAR SNACK" (classes 29, 30, 31). Therefore the word mark was the earlier CTM and compared with the contested CTM. (paragraph 25). Johannes Gierlich

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








+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox