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, 30 APRIL 2015
General Court: Iglotex(fig) v. Iglo

In Case T282/13, the General Court reviewed the following opposition

Iglotex SA

Iglo Foods Group Ltd –Earlier CTM 

 Image not found

 IGLO

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’.

 Both OHIM and the General Court upheld the opposition on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

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.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 07.53
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
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