• 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
      • Eva Maria Amoah
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Word element of the earlier mark dominant but irrelevant

19. December 2019

It held in vain that there was a likelihood of confusion with the earlier figurative mark Gastivo: both marks show cutlery in a green circle. The CFI denied the likelihood of confusion, although identical services in the restaurant and catering area are claimed. The word element of the earlier mark was decisive.

The word element in the earlier figurative mark Gastivo was the decisive point in the trade dispute about the two similar Union figurative marks. The proprietor of the earlier figurative mark Gastivo, the applicant gastivo portal GmbH (Germany), argued that the figurative element of the earlier mark was dominant and that there was great similarity between the figurative elements of the two marks.

The European Court (European Court of First Instance, CFI) contradicted this view. With regard to the earlier mark, it should be noted that the word element is significantly larger than the figurative element, so that it is dominant, the court ruled. Although the figurative element of the mark is at the beginning, the word element of the earlier mark is not negligible in the overall impression created by that mark. Therefore, the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the marks at issue cannot be limited to taking account of the figurative element of the earlier mark.

Ältere Bildmarke Gastivo
Ältere Bildmarke Gastivo

Word element of the earlier mark dominant but irrelevant

The Court once again pointed out that the word element in figurative marks is particularly relevant to consumers, since consumers want to communicate with the goods.

In this context, please also read: “Similarity of Union figurative marks – word element decisive“.

However, where, as in the present case, two figurative marks are compared, one of which has a word element and the other of which has none, a phonetic comparison is not relevant in the assessment of the similarity of those marks. Therefore, since the mark applied for does not contain any word element, it is not necessary to carry out a separate phonetic comparison with the earlier mark.

No visual similarity

As regards the visual comparison, the Board of Appeal rightly ruled out a likelihood of confusion, the Court added, pointing out important differences between the marks at issue.

In the mark applied for

  1. the fork depicted is positioned vertically, unlike the fork depicted in the figurative element of the earlier mark;
  2. extends beyond the green circle surrounding it;
  3. and have rectangular prongs on

Moreover, one mark is represented with a knife and the other without.

Weak conceptual similarity

Union figurative marksIn the conceptual comparison of the marks at issue, the Court acknowledged that the marks at issue have a slight conceptual similarity. Both marks represent cutlery.
However, the word element of the earlier mark is also irrelevant in the conceptual comparison. The word element of the earlier mark could not be conceptually comparable to the mark applied for because the later mark does not have such a word element, the CFI held.

Therefore, the conceptual similarity was also only weakly pronounced, the European Court explained. The CFI pointed out that there is not always a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 if the marks are considered to be slightly similar.

Interaction in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion

In the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, a low degree of similarity between the goods or services claimed may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa, the CFI stated.

The applicant therefore argued in vain that there was a high degree of similarity between the marks at issue and between the services concerned.

Although the services in question could even be considered identical, the similarity between the marks was too weak to give rise to a likelihood of confusion, the CFI held. The mere association as such is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 – unless the earlier mark is a very well-known brand name. However, that is not the case here.

Therefore, the Board of Appeal was right to find that there was no likelihood of confusion, the CFI held, notwithstanding the fact that the services concerned are identical.

Do you also wish to defend your trade mark or trade name?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Source: 

Text and Images are based on the judgement of CFI EU:T:2019:854 und EU:T:2019:852

  • share  19 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconlikelihood of confusion,  Union figurative mark,  similarity,  figurative mark,  earlier mark,  conceptual similarity,  word element,  Gastivo,  identical services,  cutlery,  fork,  green circle

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

  • Alkemie vs. Alkmene: word/figurative mark vs. earlier word mark 9. April 2021
  • Hitachi patent partially invalid in GER: code distribution for mobile communication 8. April 2021
  • Google vs. Oracle: Java API code falls under fair use! 6. April 2021
  • EuGH / Case Lundbeck: Restriction by object 29. 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:

9. April 2021
Alkemie vs. Alkmene: word/figurative mark vs. earlier word mark

Alkemie vs. Alkmene: word/figurative mark vs. earlier word mark

26. March 2021
Colour mark: systematic arrangement of colours decisive

Colour mark: systematic arrangement of colours decisive

25. March 2021
Cyprus unsuccessful against mark Halloumi from Greece

Cyprus unsuccessful against mark Halloumi from Greece

19. March 2021
THE TIME vs. TIMEHOUSE: no counteraction theory

THE TIME vs. TIMEHOUSE: no counteraction theory

12. March 2021
Kerrygold vs. Kerrymaid: likelihood of confusion

Kerrygold vs. Kerrymaid: likelihood of confusion

12. March 2021
Puma vs. Puma system: TM registration for remote goods

Puma vs. Puma system: TM registration for remote goods

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