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.

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
WEDNESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2012
General Court: Tesa Tack v. Tack Ceys

In Case T-555/11, Tesa SE (Germany) filed for CTM ‘TESA TACK’ opposed successfully by Superquímica, SA (Spain) for identical goods in Class 16 on the basis of earlier Spanish mark ‘Tack Ceys’:

Self-adhesive products for office and household purposes’

Bands, strips, sheets and adhesive matters for stationery or the household. Plastic sheets for packaging

The relevant public includes the average, reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect Spanish consumer as well as the Spanish professionals with a high level of attention.

Next, it found that the goods covered by the marks at issue were identical. As regards the comparison of the signs, the Board of Appeal found, as confirmed by the General Court, that there was a certain degree of visual and aural similarity, in particular owing to the presence of the word ‘tack’ in both marks at issue.

Further, according to the EU Commission survey referred to by the applicant, knowledge of English is less widespread in Spain than in other EU countries. According to that survey, only 27% of the Spanish population has sufficient skills in English to have a conversation in that language.

Moreover, the fact that the word ‘tack’ is used for adhesive products in other national or Community marks or on internet sites in no way proves that the relevant public, in so far as it understands English, understands the meaning of that word. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that ‘tack’ is part of the basic English vocabulary with which the relevant public is likely to be familiar.

It should also be noted in that regard that the word ‘tack’ has several meanings in English and that most of those meanings do not concern adhesive properties, as is apparent from the dictionary extracts appended as Annex1 to the application lodged with OHIM by the applicant.

Thus, as regards the distinctive character of the word ‘tack’ and the conceptual comparison, the applicant’s argument that the word is considered by the relevant public to be descriptive of the goods at issue, was rejected by OHIM and the Court.

Therefore, since the marks at issue are to a certain extent similar and that the earlier mark has an inherent distinctive character, there is a likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article8(1)(b) of CTMR.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 10.38
Tags: General Court, likelihood of confusion, tack, tesa, ceys,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3023

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
NEWSLETTER

Signup for our newsletter.
Weekly headlines delivered to your inbox