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
MONDAY, 10 JUNE 2013
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


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 @ 09.31
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, snickers, kickers,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3251
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








+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