Log in


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
Do's and don'ts of EU trade marks in General Court: Curodont v. Eurodont

In Case T‑53/15, the General Court upheld the findings of the EUIPO's BOA in the following opposition:

credentis AG- contested CTM

Aldi Karlslunde K/S -earlier Danish mark



Class 3: ‘Cleaning and polishing preparations for use in dental technology and dental practices; Dentifrices, Mouthwashes, Cosmetics’;

Class 44: ‘Hygienic care for human beings’


Class 3 ‘Mouth washes and dentifrices, not for medical purposes, in particular tooth pastes and mouth washes’.

The First Board of Appeal annulled the decision of the Opposition Division.

Notwithstanding the possibility that part of the relevant public has a higher level of attention, the BoA correctly found that the relevant public in regard to which the likelihood of confusion between the signs had to be assessed was composed of average consumers with an average level of attention

Moreover, the goods and services concerned are identical or similar. There is a certain relationship of complementarity between the goods in Class 3 and the services in Class 44 as they share the same overall purpose, namely hygiene and beauty care. Hygiene care for human beings forms a vast category aiming at washing and purifying the human body. Similarly, dentifrices and mouth washes are intended to be brought into contact with the human body, particularly with the mouth, in order to cleanse, freshen, protect or maintain it in good condition.

Having regard to the fact that the sign applied for reproduced a significant part of the earlier sign, to the visual and phonetic similarities of the signs at issue, to the absence of any clear conceptual difference (taken as a whole, neither of the two signs has any everyday meaning in Danish) between the signs at issue, and to the average distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark, there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 20.13
Tags: General Court, curodont, eurodont, denmark, likelihood of confusion,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA4337
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








+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox