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, 22 JANUARY 2015
General Court: Cat&Clean v. Clean Cat

The General Court just issued a Judgment in  Case T-587/13 (cat&clean) where our dear colleagues at IPKat make the relevant consumer per excellence.

Image not foundMrs  Schwerdt filed for the CTM (here left) for class 31 “cat litter”. Iberamigo SA filed an opposition on the basis of earlier Spanish word mark CLEAN CAT (a pleonasm in itself) for “litter soil” in Class 31.

Both the Opposition Division and Board of Appeal granted the opposition: visually, the conflicting signs coincide with the words "cat" and "clean", although they are not placed in the same order, and differed in their figurative elements. Aurally, the signs at issue were similar to a medium level and, conceptually, those signs convey the same concept, except for part of the Spanish public who doesn’t understand English.  The earlier mark has a distinctive character. Thus there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs for identical goods.

The General Court rejected the first plea in law brought by the CTM applicant and confirmed the risk of confusion on the grounds of Article 8 (1) b)CTMR.

The appellant saw its two other pleas in law rejected as well:

1)      the claim that the possible to register a descriptive sign such as “Clean cat” for ‘cat litter’ in Spain would constitute a disguised restriction on trade contrary to Article 34 TFEU. The Court dismissed this argument reminding the applicant that the distinctive character of the earlier mark cannot be disputed in the context of an opposition  procedure (see Judgment of  24 may 2012, Formula One Licensing/OHMI).

2)      As regards an alleged violation of articles 16 and 20 of the Fundamental Rights convention, article 17 provides for the “peaceful enjoyment of property rights” including IP rights, therefore the opponent has an intellectual property right that has not been challenged, and which effects which cannot be challenged in these proceeding.

 The GC dismissed the appeal.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 14.11
Tags: General court, cat, clean, litter,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3978
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