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
THURSDAY, 28 AUGUST 2014
General Court: diamonds figurative marks

In Case T-36/13, the General Court dismissed the appeal in the following op position case:

M. Antonio Facchinelli – Contested CTM

Erreà Sport SpA- Opponent

-earlier CTM

-earlier Italian mark

Classes 3,14,18 and 25

Classes 3,14,16,18,25,28,35 and 41

The General Court confirmed the findings of OHIM, namely the lack of confusion between he signs despite the identity of the goods. First, it held that the marks did not contain elements that can be considered negligible. Second, it found that, visually, the marks were significantly different, resulting on the one hand, the presence in the mark applied for an intersection between two diamonds with a contour black, highlighted by small white dots, and secondly, the disparity in verbal elements. Third, it considered that, given the differences between the word elements of the marks, they were different phonetically. Fourth, it found that the conceptual comparison was irrelevant because no concept emanated from the brands. At most, the mark applied for would evoke the name of a person and the earlier CTM would be perceived as the pronunciation of an acronym and would be so different.

With regard to the comparison between the mark applied for and the earlier Italian mark, the differences between the marks were even more intense than in the case of the earlier CTM, due to the absence of verbal element in the aforementioned Italian brand. Finally, as regards the applicant's argument that the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier marks, this argument was dismissed because of the lack of similarity between the marks.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 13.56
Tags: general court, likelihood of confusion, diamonds, errea, antonio bacione,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3829
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