• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

European Court: Apple is not equal to Pear

31. January 2019

Apple lost today before the European court in the trademark dispute over its famous apple. The focus was on the similarity between the earlier figurative mark with a reputation and the contested figurative mark of a stylized pear. However, apples and pears are not comparable, the CJEU ruled.

Apple opposed the trademark registration

pear
Union figurative mark in dispute

The contested figurative mark in the form of a stylised pear was filed in July 2014 by the Chinese company Pear Technologies Ltd, established in Macao (China), for Nice Classes 9, 35 and 42. This includes, inter alia, the product groups computers, laptops, digital marketing, software and data management. Apple filed an opposition against that trade mark registration in January 2015 and relied on its own earlier and well-known Union figurative mark in the form of a bitten apple.

AppleThe Board of Appeal upheld Apple’s decision and found that there was a likelihood of confusion and possible exploitation of the earlier mark with a reputation due to conceptual similarity between the two marks. The Board of Appeal argued that the allusive and “somewhat mocking” image of the pear represented in the mark applied for would create an intellectual link with the earlier mark because of the uniqueness and high reputation of the earlier mark among consumers. All the more so since the use of a piece of fruit is very pronounced and unusual in the categories of goods concerned.

CJEU annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal

In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) contradicted these arguments and annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of 18 January 2017 (“the contested decision”). The Board of Appeal was apparently guided by the reputation of the earlier mark, the European court stated. However, the reputation of the earlier mark was not a relevant factor for assessing the similarity of the conflicting marks. Only if there is such similarity would the reputation of the earlier mark become relevant for the assessment of whether there is a connection between the marks at issue.

However, the similarity itself was very slight, the court made clear. Apples and pears are literally not comparable. The marks in question would immediately be perceived as different fruits, and the shapes of the figurative elements and the fruits depicted would also be altogether different, the court specified, pointing to the different representations (stylised squares of different size in the pear, the apple a fixed image). Moreover, the contested pears figurative mark also shows no trace of a bite. Therefore, by today’s judgment, the CJEU annuls the contested decision of the Board of Appeal as regards the similarity between the two marks.

Other parts of the plea have not been examined

In the present case, other pleas were also raised: first, a link between the marks at issue; second, the likelihood of taking advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark; and third, the existence of an important reason for the use of the mark applied for. However, since the plea alleging similarity between the marks is well founded, the contested decision should be annulled without it being necessary to examine the other parts of the plea, the CJEU stated.

 

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

Source for text and pictures:

Judgment of European Court T:2019:45

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconpears,  Pear,  Apple,  T:2019:45,  likelihood of confusion,  brand,  good reputation used unfairly,  Trademark Reputation,  visual similarity,  Union figurative mark,  earlier trade mark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]