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, 5 MAY 2014
General Court: Elite by Mondariz v. ELITE

In Case T-386/12, the General Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal which found there was no likelihood of confusion between the following marks

Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val (Spain)

Elite Licensing (Switzerland)







CTM application and IR claimed to be well-known in Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg and Netherlands for services related to ‘models agencies and promotion’ in Classes 35 and 41 

Classes 32 ‘mineral waters’ , Classes 38 and 39 including ‘ services related to marketing, packaging and storage of mineral waters’

Relevant Classes 32, 35, 38 and 41


Leaving aside the procedural matters which the Board of Appeal ruled on correctly, the General Court confirmed that the relevant public is made of both the average consumers and professionals for Classes 38 and 39.

It was not disputed that the goods and services were in part identical, in part lowly similar.

Whereas the GC confirmed that the dominant element in the contested CTM was ´Mondariz´, so the BoA rightly concluded the signs had a low similarity from a visual point of view and an average aural similarity, the GC found that the BoA erred regarding the conceptual similarity. Indeed, the signs share the word ‘elite’ which will be perceived as referring to the notion of exclusivity, best of a group, superiority or privilege´ so the signs share a high degree of similarity from a conceptual point of view.

In the overall assessment, even if the earlier signs have a slightly less than average degree of distinctiveness due to the slightly descriptive character for the services in question, the GC found that there will be likelihood of confusion for the relevant public.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 15.57
Tags: General Court, likelihood of confusion, Elite, Elite by mondariz,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3692
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