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: Valdasaar v. Val d'azur
In Case
T-519/13, the General Court reviewed the following op position:
|
Leder & Schuh International AG (Austria)-
contested CTM |
Valerie Epple (Germany) –earlier CTM |
|
VALDASAAR |
VAL D’AZUR |
|
Classes 25 and
35 including various types of footwear and retail services for footwear, jewelry,
purses, etc |
Class 25 ‘clothing,
footwear, headwear” |
The Opposition Division upheld the opposition for all the goods in Class 25 and most of the services in Class 35.
<
The Board of Appeal annulled the OD’s decision as far as the services are concerned in Class 35.However the BoA confirmed there was a risk of confusion for the goods in Class 25 finding them identical.
As to the
similarity of the signs, those signs have a certain similarity visually and a
degree of similarity using phonetics. It is impossible to make a comparison
conceptually in the EU or it will be
different for the French public: the contested CTM is an arbitrary word and the
earlier mark will evoke the French Riviera (“côte d’azur”) or "blue azure valley" only to the
French-speaking consumer. As regards the distinctive character, the Board of
Appeal held that the distinctive character of the earlier mark was average,
since the term "val d’azur ‘ was devoid of descriptive meaning in relation
to the products concerned.
Given the
identical nature of the goods in question and the degree of similarity between
the conflicting signs, there was a risk of confusion.
Tags: General Court, likelihood of confusion, Valdasaar ,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3949
