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...
FRIDAY, 6 MAY 2016
General Court: Dynamic life v. Dynamin
In case T-454/15 , the General Court upheld the EUIPO's decision regarding the following opposition:
EUTM applicant -Mr Matthias Werner
Opponent's Spanish marks - Laboratorios Ern, SA
Class 5: ‘Dietary supplements for humans and animals; Tobacco-free cigarettes for medical purposes; Vitamin preparations; Medicinal drinks’; Class 32: ‘Fruit beverages and fruit juices; Fruit juice concentrates (non-alcoholic drinks); Beer’.
Class 1: ‘Chemical products and specifics’;
Class 5: ‘Dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’
The BoA upheld the Opposition Division's decision.
Regarding the comparison of goods: the drinks covered by the mark applied for and the ‘dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’ covered by the earlier mark were different, the ‘dietary supplements for humans and animals’ and ‘vitamins’ in Class 5 covered by the mark applied for, on the one hand, and the ‘dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’ covered by the earlier mark, on the other hand, were at most highly similar, and that the ‘medicinal drinks’ were identical to the ‘dietetic foods adapted for medical use in any shape or form’ covered by the earlier mark.
Moreover, the signs at issue are visually and phonetically similar to a low degree and are not conceptually similar. The earlier mark DYNAMIN is at most vaguely allusive to 'dynamic' because of its clear differences from the Spanish word ‘dinámico’. By contrast, in relation to the mark applied for, ithe term ‘dynamic’ ismore similar to the Spanish word ‘dinámico’ but that neither the word ‘life’ nor the figurative element evoked any concept for the general public in Spain.Taking into account the normal distinctive character of the earlier mark and the heightened level of attention of the relevant public for goods for medical use, there is no likelihood of confusion.
The General Court dismissed the appeal.
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 18.17
dynamic life, dynamin, medical goods, relative grounds,
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