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
WEDNESDAY, 22 MAY 2013
General Court: it's a hard dog's life for K-9

In case T- 231/12, Julius-K9 (Hungary) applied for registration of the word mark JULIUS K9 for goods in Classes 18 and 25, including ‘Clothing for animals; harness for animals; dog collars; muzzles, etc’

Rocket Dog Brands LLC (US) brought an opposition based on the two following CTM’s 'K9 dog (fig) also registered in Classes 18 and 25.  

The OHIM, as confirmed by the GC, found that the goods at issue in Classes 18 and 25 were identical. Next, the word ‘julius’ in the trade mark applied for was dominant and that the alphanumeric combination ‘K9’ in it was secondary. Further, the marks were visually dissimilar given the lack of correspondence between their dominant and eye-catching elements and given that their respective structures were completely different. In addition, the marks were phonetically similar to a below average degree since the word ‘julius’ was present in the mark applied for and since the earlier marks contained graphic elements which were not pronounced. Further, the marks were not conceptually similar because there were no features related to dogs in the mark applied for.

Finally, the applicant’s argument that the word ‘K9’ will be understood in the sense of the English word ‘canine’, even if it were proven, cannot lead to the conclusion that the inherently distinctive character of the earlier marks in relation to the products that they referred to would be increased.

Thus, when assessing overall the likelihood of confusion, despite the identical nature of the goods concerned, there was no likelihood of confusion given the visual dissimilarity of the marks at issue, the below average degree of their phonetic similarity, the average distinctiveness of the earlier marks and the normal level of attentiveness of the relevant public.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 20.40
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, K9, dogs clothes, Julius K9,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3227
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