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.
Who we all are...
MONDAY, 11 MAY 2015
General Court: Shadow complex v Business shadow
In case T-717/13, the General Court dismissed the appeal
regarding the following opposition for goods in Class 9:
Chair Entertainment Group LLC -
Libelle AG - earlier CTM
game software for personal computers and home video game consoles’
Computer software (recorded)’
Regarding the relevant public, even if the products ‘computer game software
for personal computers and home video games consoles’ covered by the trade mark
applied for are also directed at a young public, the relevant public is to be
defined taking into account those users likely to use all of the goods at
issue. So the relevant consumer is the reasonably well-informed and reasonably
observant and circumspect members of the general public of the European Union.
The goods under class 9 covered by the
two trade marks are identical in nature;
As regards the signs, the term (‘shadow’) meaning
‘comparative darkness’ in English, can be used in the market sector concerned
with a specific meaning to indicate a copy of a master, ‘shadow copies’; the elements (‘business’) and
(‘complex’) are likely to be perceived as descriptive elements for the goods at
issue. They have a secondary importance in the trade marks;
Allthough the English-speaking public
would understand the meaning of all the words which make up the marks at issue,
it would probably not attribute any particular meaning to the two marks in
their entirety;The signs are visually and phonetically
similar to only a low degree because of the presence of the word ‘shadow’.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 09.25
General Court, likelihood of confusion, shadow complex, business shadow,
the part of the public understanding the meaning of the term ‘shadow’, the signs
will be conceptually similar. Therefore there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue at least for the English-speaking part of the general public of the Union. The mark applied for might well be perceived as a variant of the earlier mark; since it was found that there was a likelihood of confusion with one of the earlier marks, it was not necessary to examine the other earlier rights relied on in support of the opposition.
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
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