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.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
General Court: Iglotex(fig) v. Iglo
In Case T‑282/13, the General Court reviewed the
following opposition
|
Iglotex SA |
Iglo Foods Group Ltd –Earlier CTM |
|
|
|
|
Class 29: ‘Meat; meat preserves; tinned meat; meat products; charcuterie; fish; frozen fish products; frozen fish; seafood; poultry; game; meat extract; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked, fruits and vegetables; [etc] all the aforesaid goods in frozen and refrigerated form’; – Class 30: ‘Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar,
artificial coffee; flour; confectionery; sugar confectionery; ice-cream;
frozen yoghurts; edible ices; ice; powders for ice cream; water ices; chilled
desserts; baking powder; spices; meat pies; frozen confections; gnocchi;
perogies; dumplings; pyzy (potato dumplings stuffed with meat); kopytko
(potato dumplings); gnocchi; tortellini; cream puddings; pizzas; pizza dough;
pizza bases; toasts; fruit pastries; dough; prepared pie crust mixes;
flavourings, other than essential oils, for cakes; cakes; fruit cakes;
pancakes; pasta; sushi; groats for human food; all the aforesaid goods in
frozen and refrigerated form’. |
Class 29: ‘Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts;
preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes;
eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; frozen prepared meals;
instant meals and snack products’; – Class 30: ‘Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar,
rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from
cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking
powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice’. |
The goods covered by the mark applied for are either
identical or highly similar to the goods covered by the earlier mark.
Concerning the comparison of the signs, as regards the
visual aspect, the figurative elements are not negligible in the mark applied
for. As a matter of fact, the partial depiction of a snowflake and the
depiction of a standing penguin re not particularly distinctive elements in
relation to goods in frozen and refrigerated form, although those elements, in
particular the penguin, none the less stood out in size and position within the
mark in question. In addition, the word element is clearly legible and is not
small in size. Having regard to the case-law according to which word elements
are, as a rule, more distinctive than figurative elements, the word element in
question was certainly not negligible and played at least an independent
distinctive role in the mark applied for.
However, due to the fact that the earlier mark coincided
with the first letters of the word element in the mark applied for, and since
consumers generally tend to focus on the first part of a word element, the
signs are visually similar.
As regards the phonetic aspect, although the ending of the
mark applied for differs from that of the earlier mark and there is a possible
difference in where the stress is placed for part of the relevant public, at
least as regards the remainder of that public, the signs are phonetically
similar.
Thirdly, concerning the conceptual aspect, there is a
conceptual similarity for the part of the relevant public capable of identifying
the common concept conveyed by the word ‘iglo’ in both the mark applied for and
the earlier word mark.
Lastly, taking into account the normal inherent
distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is a likelihood of confusion within
the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of CTMR.
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, Iglotex, Iglo,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA4070
