Log in

CLASS 46


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
WEDNESDAY, 27 AUGUST 2014
Portugal: Karting Algarve

MUNDO DO KARTING applied for the registration of the nominative sign “KARTING ALGARVE” for theme parks. PARKALGARVE, the owner of the trade mark “KARTÓDROMO INTERNACIONAL ALGARVE” (sign on the right), covering, amongst others, the operation of sports facilities, opposed such registration on relative grounds.However, INPI did not need to assess the likelihood of confusion between the signs, as it found that the sign was devoid of any distinctive character.

MUNDO DO KARTING appealed such decision to the Intellectual Property Court. In its judgement (see Intellectual Property Bulletin no. 163/2014, of 27 August, available here), the Court affirmed INPI’s decision, despite the appellant claiming that the sign had acquired a distinctive character.

The appellant claimed that it had been using the sign for the past 20 years. However, the provided evidence (company’s communications and e-mails, the domain name www.kartingalgarve.com and divulgation in press, television and internet) was considered insufficient by the IPC. The Court further stated that the evidence had to show that the sign was recognised by a significant part of the public of the national territory. It would not be enough to demonstrate that the trade mark was recognised as such by the population of Algarve.

Still, the Court decided to the address the relative grounds issue. While doing so, it found that even if it had decided that the applied trade mark had acquired a distinctive character, the registration had to be refused as the opposing signs were graphically and conceptually similar and there was similarity between the covered services, which would result in a likelihood of confusion between the signs.

Posted by: Pedro Malaquias @ 17.13
Tags: Portugal, Absolute Grounds, Relative Grounds, Intellectual Property Court,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3828
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






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365
POST ADDRESS

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester
LE4 9HA

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox