• 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
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW

20. January 2021

Bacardi won today before the European Court of Justice in the trademark dispute concerning the vodka trademark 42 BELOW against the Czech trademark application BLEND 42 VODKA. Because of the oral orders in bars, even the small phonetic similarity ’42’ was sufficient for likelihood of confusion.

Blend 42 Below
Czech mark in dispute

The parties to the dispute are Bacardi & Co. Ltd. (Switzerland) and Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Czech Republic). Bacardi claimed trademark infringement of its own earlier trademark 42 BELOW (protected as an EU word mark and as an international trademark since 2009) by likelihood of confusion. This is because in 2014, the plaintiff from the Czech Republic had applied for and registered the EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA.

Bacardi’s opposition was successful, but the Czech trademark applicants appealed against it, initially before the Board of Appeal, which, however, confirmed the likelihood of confusion for the Nice Class 33 goods. The Czech applicant appealed against this decision to the CFI.

Visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison

The Board of Appeal had found an average degree of visual similarity and at least a low degree of phonetic and conceptual similarity. In addition, the Board of Appeal had held that Bacardi had acquired an increased degree of distinctiveness through the use of its earlier EU mark 42 BELOW.

The applicant from the Czech Republic therefore objected before the CFI mainly to the differences found between the word elements and contested an increased distinctiveness of the Bacadi mark through use.

CFI: phonetic similarity has special significance

However, the European Court of Justice (Court of First Instance (CFI)) today dismissed the action from the Czech Republic in its entirety.

The Board of Appeal was entirely correct in finding that, with regard to the goods in Nice Class 33, particular importance must be attached to the phonetic similarity of the conflicting marks, the court explained. This is because, in the case of an oral order in bars, restaurants or discotheques, which are common for vodka, the fundamental phonetic similarity alone is sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion.

Therefore, it is also not necessary to prove or present an increased distinctiveness through use of the earlier EU trademark, the CFI added, it is sufficient to point out that the Board of Appeal rightly granted at least an average original distinctiveness to the earlier Bacadi trademark 42 BELOW.

Bacadi mark 42 Below: original distinctive character

The Court explained this point in more detail: if consumers perceive the number 42 rather as an indication of the alcohol content of the vodka beverages, it is true that the Bacardi mark 42 BELOW can be said to have only a low degree of original distinctiveness; nor can it be ruled out that some of the relevant consumers do so.

But for the rest of the relevant public, who will not perceive this number “42” as an indication of alcohol content, the earlier EU mark has average inherent distinctiveness, the court found. That’s because the presence of a number in a mark is not, in principle, likely to be perceived directly by the relevant public as descriptive of a particular characteristic of the goods in question, namely alcohol content – if it is not associated with any of the units commonly used to measure that content, the CFI ruled.

Thus, since the earlier Bacadi mark has inherently at least average distinctiveness and the goods in question are identical and the signs in question are similar, it must be presumed for this part of the relevant public that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question, at least in the UK, the CFI summarized its decision.

A likelihood of confusion therefore exists in this case, the CFI ruled, despite a low degree of phonetic similarity. This is because the high degree of similarity, even identity, of the claimed goods compensates for a low degree of similarity in the comparison of the signs.

In doing so, the court referred to the global and general case law regarding likelihood of confusion, according to which there is a correlation between the factors under consideration, in particular between the similarity of the marks and that of the goods or services designated by them. A low degree of similarity of the goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity of the marks and vice versa.

Do you also want to protect or defend your trademark?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

Source:

Judgement CFI, Bacadi and 42 Below, EU:T:2021:20

 

  • share  17 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconlikelihood of confusion,  low similarity,  Nice Class 33,  oral order,  identity of goods,  alcohol,  Vodka,  Bacadi,  Below 42,  42,  BLEND 42 VODKA

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment? 5. March 2021
  • Intel to pay 2.2 billion in damages – to VLSI / Fortress Investment 5. March 2021
  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021

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:

5. March 2021
Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment?

Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment?

1. March 2021
Suspension of infringement proceedings

Suspension of infringement proceedings

16. February 2021
BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

16. February 2021
UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

11. February 2021
EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

9. February 2021
BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form