• 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

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 icongreen circle,  similarity,  figurative mark,  earlier mark,  conceptual similarity,  word element,  Gastivo,  identical services,  cutlery,  likelihood of confusion,  fork,  Union figurative mark

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

  • 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]