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
General Court: Boomerang v. Boomerang TV

In Case T-285/12, an appeal was brought before the General Court on the basis of an opposition for the following marks

CTM applicant -The Cartoon Network, Inc. (USA)

Earlier CTM- Boomerang TV, SA,(Spain)



Class 38: ‘Cable and television broadcasting services; broadcasting programmes directed to children and young adults via a global computer network’;

Class 41: ‘Entertainment services, namely a series of television and cable television programmes targeted primarily to children and young adults

Class 41- film and recording studios, rent of videos, concourse (scattering), installation of television and radio programmes; production of films’

The Board of Appeal considered that the relevant public consisted of both professionals and the general public throughout the territory of EU. OHIM maintained film production services also target the general public, in so far as those services may be provided to broadcasters who, in turn, are influenced by the general public, the production studios broadcast their name to the general public together with the produced content and that knowledge can shape the public’s expectations of the type of content they wish to be broadcast. However, the General Court found that the relevant public for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is composed of the audience for the services in question and not of other categories of persons who have only an indirect relationship with the provider of those services.

There is a degree of similarity between the services, in Classes 38 and 41, referred to by the mark applied for and the ‘production of films’ services, in Class 41, referred to by the earlier mark.

As the conflicting signs are so similar, there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR, even though certain consumers might have a higher than average level of attention. Further the new evidence adduced by the applicant did not demonstrate the peaceful coexistence on the market of the conflicting marks.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 08.33
Tags: General Court, likelihood of confusion, boomeran, boomerang TV, relevant public, cartoon network,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3373
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