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...
WEDNESDAY, 11 JUNE 2014
General Court: JUNGBORN v. BORN
In Case T-401/12, the General Court confirmed the likelihood of confusion between CTM application JUNGBORN (Robert Klinger OHG) and earlier German mark BORN (Develey Holding GmbH&co) for similar or identical goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32.
The Court upheld OHIM's findings that the marks have an average degree of similarity. For the average German consumer, the elements JUNG and BORN are equally important in the contested CTM: indeed JUNG will be easily perceived as “youth” whereas BORN (“fount”) is not a commonly used word in German for that meaning, and there is no indication that the German public will identify it with the English verb “to be born”. Since BORN has a an autonomous distinctive location in the contested CTM, the signs share a visual and aural similarity sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion for similar goods according to Article 8(1) b) CTMR.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 15.28
General Court, likelihood of confusion, jungborn, born,
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