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...
MONDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2013
General Court: REVARO v. RECARO
In Case T-349/12, the General Court had to review
the following opposition
Applicant -Rudolf Leiner GmbH
20 : Furniture, mirrors, picture frames ;goods (not included in other classes)
of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell,
amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials,
or of plastics
mark registered for Class 20 “furniture¨”
The OHIM upheld the opposition finding there is a
risk of confusion due to the high visual and aural similarity of the marks and
the identity between the goods at issue.
The General Court confirmed the OHIM’s decision and
rejected the appeal. Despite the stylization of the applied for trademark, there
is no significant difference for the average relevant consumer from a visual and
aural point of view. There is no possible conceptual comparison. Therefore,
there is a likelihood of confusion according to Article 8 (1) b) CTMR.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 22.49
General court, likelihood of confusion, revaro,recaro,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
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