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.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
General Court: Kickers wins opposition over Snickers
In Case T-537/11, the General Court had to review the finding of likelihood of confusion between the following marks
Hultafors Group AB (formerly Snickers Workwear AB) - Sweden CTM applicant |
Società Italiana Calzature SpA- Italy
Earlier Italian trademark |
|
KICKERS |
Class 25: ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; workwear, coveralls, vests, braces for clothing (suspenders), belts (clothing)’. |
Class 25: clothing items, shoes, headgear |
The Opposition Division and Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM upheld the opposition on the basis of Article 8(1) (b) CTMR. Since the earlier mark is an Italian mark, the relevant territory for the purposes of analysing the likelihood of confusion is Italy, and the average consumer concerned is a member of the public at large and has a normal level of attentiveness.
The goods covered by the signs at issue are identical. The signs have an average degree of visual and phonetic similarity since both first syllables will be stressed and the consonants “k” and “sn” are not significant in the overall pronunciation. OHIM rightly emphasises that, although many consumers have a sufficiently good knowledge of English, the ending ‘ickers’ does not exist in Italian and that it will appear unusual to the majority of the relevant consumers. Further, the signs are conceptually neutral because the Italian consumer will not recognize the verb “to kick”; the inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark must be regarded as normal, since the word ‘kickers’ does not have meaning for the goods concerned in Class 25.
Furthermore, likelihood of confusion can be confirmed, even on the basis of the average distinctiveness of the earlier mark. Thus it was not necessary to examine the argument relating to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark and the one based on Article 8(5) of CTMR. The General Court dismissed the appeal.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 09.31Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, snickers, kickers,



Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3251