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

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

KIK vs. KIX: Discounter is not relevant

28. August 2020

Clothing manufacturer KIK won before the European Court in the trademark dispute KIK vs. KIX and the allegation of likelihood of confusion. The CJEU used the case for clarification with regard to the term “textiles” in Nice class 35 – and that “discounters” are not a relevant characteristic.

KIK Discounter

The trademark dispute began when in 2014 the plaintiff, FF Group Romania SRL (Romania) applied for the EU figurative mark KIX as a trademark. The intervener, Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Germany), filed an opposition against this trademark registration, citing its own earlier word mark KIK, which is protected as both an international trademark and a national trademark.

The opposition was successful and both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO upheld the opposition. The applicant FF Group Romania SRL did not want to accept this and brought the case before the European Court (CJEU).

CJEU confirmed the likelihood of confusion

The European Court of Justice ruled on the question of similarity and likelihood of confusion between the two marks in the same way as the previous instances: there is a medium degree of visual similarity, a high degree of phonetic similarity; a conceptual or conceptual comparison is not possible, however, since the signs are meaningless in German.

In addition, the CFI took the opportunity to define more precisely the term “textiles” from Nice Class 35. Among other things, the applicant had argued that its own trademark application KIX claimed “clothing” and “accessories”, whereas the earlier marks of KIK claimed “textiles”.

Textiles also include any clothing

The court explained that the term “textiles” in Nice Class 35 includes household, bed and table linen as well as clothing and headgear. The Opposition Division had rightly acknowledged this in its contested decision.

According to settled case-law, in assessing the similarity of the goods or services in question, all the relevant factors must be taken into account, the Court recalled, in particular their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. Distribution channels may also be taken into account. Moreover, services are considered to be identical if the services designated by the earlier trademark fall into a more general category designated by the trademark application, the CJEU added.

In practice, this means that the category “clothing” also includes “sportswear”. The Board of Appeal was therefore right to compare “sportswear” with “clothing” and to consider them identical, the CJEU held.

Discounters vs. high quality goods?

Finally, the applicant claimed that, contrary to the findings in the contested decision, those services were not similar, since the services covered by the earlier national mark were the services of ‘discounters’, whereas the services designated by the mark applied for concerned the high-quality goods offered in retail outlets.

However, the CJEU rejected this objection. Details of the marketing methods used by the parties were not included in the lists of services designated by those marks, the Court found. In short, “discounters” are not a relevant feature of the list of trade marks.

Do you also want to protect your trademark or brand ?

Our attorneys will be pleased to advise you. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!

 

Sources: 

Judgement of  CJEU,  EU:T:2020:328

Image:

ulleo | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconCFI,  CJEU,  clothing,  discounters,  European Court,  judgment,  KIK,  KIX,  likelihood of confusion,  Nice Class 35,  Phonetic similarity,  similarity,  textiles,  visual similarity

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

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • 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

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:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

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

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 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

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

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

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

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.