[rev_slider alias="slideme"]

Home / Similitude signes

PARTAGER

Is it worth spending resources in protecting a pure figurative/device mark?

Is it worth spending resources in protecting a pure figurative/device mark? How can such a mark be enforced? Can it be the basis of successful actions towards semi-figurative marks? Under which conditions?

All these questions led us to proceed to an analysis of the recent case-law concerning the French and European Offices’ position when comparing a figurative mark to a … Read the rest

PARTAGER

GOTCHA got you

Judgment T-169/09 is for those of you who still doubt that the Community practice is abandoning the automatic prevalence of word parts over device elements for trademarks consisting of words and device.

The General Court actually made it clear when upholding that the mark below was dissimilar with the word mark GOTHA by censoring the Board of Appeal for deciding … Read the rest

PARTAGER

ICEBERG trademark is freezing the OHIM in the Italian area

On September 8, 2010, the General Court has confirmed previous findings of the Opposition Division and then of the Board of Appeal by holding that a likelihood of confusion existed between the marks ICEBREAKER (contested CTM) and ICEBERG (earlier opposed trademarks) for the Italian public for products of class 25.

The General Court found that the Board of Appeal was … Read the rest

PARTAGER

V&S” is not “VS” for the OHIM

OHIM, Opposition Division, January 21, 2010

For the OHIM, the visual difference lying in the middle symbol “&” of the contested trademark was upheld as perceivable by consumers given the short length of the marks even if they coincided in the first and last letters. Aurally, the rhythm and intonation of the signs was quite different for the OHIM. Their … Read the rest

PARTAGER

Comparaison de marques composées de lettres: le cas de la lettre “H”

On December 18, 2009, the Opposition Division of the OHIM upheld that the two marks for the letter “H” – represented below – could not cause confusion. The Examiner said the marks did not coincide visually in any element. Aurally, the signs might be pronounced as “H” to the extent that the public not only sees them as devices.

Conceptually, Read the rest
PARTAGER

VOLVO et SOLVO se ressemblent (ouf!)

CFI – December 2, 2009 – VOLVO/ SOLVO

The European Court of First Instance decided on December 2, 2009, that the marks VOLVO (word and word & device trademarks covering products of class 9) and SOLVO (in classes 9, 39 and 42) shown below were confusingly similar.

The Board of Appeal had previously regarded the signs as dissimilar because … Read the rest

PARTAGER

SpagO n’est pas SPA

CFI – November 12, 2009- SPA / SPAGO

On November 12, 2009, the European Court of First Instance upheld a low similarity between the Community trademark application for SpagO in class 33 and the earlier mark SPA in class 32.

The marks at hands being short in length, the attention of the public was regarded as remaining on them as … Read the rest

PARTAGER

VINOPOLY et MONOPOLY peuvent prêter à confusion

OHIM – October 20, 2009- VINOPOLY / MONOPOLY

On October 20, 2009, the Opposition Division of the OHIM upheld that the Community trademark application for VINOPOLY was confusingly similar with the earlier mark MONOPOLY. The signs coincided in the sequence -NOPOLY which made six letters shared out of eight. Aurally, the signs had the same rhythm and intonation regardless … Read the rest