 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
| | | | | | |
1) Swedish Match Cigarettes AB (SE), the holder of the word and device mark JOHN SILVER objected to registration of the word mark SILVER in the name of Bulgartabak-Holding, BG. Both marks related to similar and identical goods in class 34 (tobacco and tobacco products). The marks were found confusingly similar. The Board found that the single element the opposed mark consisted of repeated the strongest and most distinctive element in the opponent's mark, the former having no other distinctive elements or features. The Board disregarded the semantic aspect, because it is not most important for the consumer in choosing goods of the type. The Board decided that the consumer was likely to be misled by the word SILVER into thinking that the goods originated from the same source. The Board satisfied the opposition and the opposed application was rejected.
2) BASIC Trademark SA (LU) opposed to registration of the word mark "NUMBER ONE by KappAhl" in the name of KappAhl, SE. The opposition was based on the opponent's earlier word-and-device marks with the word elements KAPPA and ROBE DI KAPPA registered in relation to goods in classes 3, 9, 18, 25, 28. The opposed mark related to goods in classes 3, 14, 25. The opposition was filed only in relation to clothes in class 25. The Board found the marks dissimilar by the general impression, dissimilarity being created by differing word elements, the composition of elements, as well as by a highly distinctive and comparatively big device (two sitting back-to-back humans) in the opponent's mark that contributed to a great extent to the overall perception of the opponent's mark. Attention was also drawn to evidence that the device of humans could be found in practically all opponent's marks. Based on these considerations the Board rejected the opposition and the opposed mark proceeded to registration.
3) Champion Products Inc. (USA) based on his earlier CHAMPION registration in relation to "clothes and footwear" in class 25 opposed to registration of the mark UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE in the name of UEFA (CH) for various goods and services, including "headgear for wear" in class 25. Though the goods were found to be similar, the Board did not find a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The Board took into consideration to a specific letter-type in the opponent's mark, the different length of the marks. However the conclusion about dissimilarity of the marks was mostly based on different connotation of the marks, particularly with consideration to renown of the UEFA abbreviation.
4) A Polish holder of a label trademark incorporating the words "LUKSUSOWA"
and "LUXURY VODKA" registered in relation to "vodka" opposed
to registration of the word mark LUXUS in relation to "alcoholic drinks
except beer" in the name of a local applicant. The opposition was based
on two grounds, namely descriptiveness about the characteristics of the goods
and confusing similarity to an earlier mark. The Board did not support the opposition
based on absolute grounds for refusal because the word "luxus" was
not found to be "purely descriptive". However the Board satisfied
the opposition based on the relative ground. The main argument was the same
connotation of the words "luxus" and "luksusowa" in the
consumer's perception. The word "LIUKSUSOWA" was found to be the most
important element of the opponent's label having "an uncommon shape",
while in the opposed mark the word "luxus" was the only element. Based
on these considerations the Board found the marks to be confusingly similar
and invalidated the opposed registration.
5)
|
Opposing Mark
|
Opposed Mark
|
 |
ADVENTURE 1
 |
The holder of the word-figurative mark "ADVENTUS" opposed to registration
of the word mark "ADVENTURE 1" for identical and similar services
in classes 38 and 42 (website designing and related services) . The opposing
mark in blue and orange colours consisted of a stylized circle and a semicircle
and the word ADVENTUS in standard upper typeface below the device. The Board
noted that all the elements had an equal impact on the overall visual perception
and it was difficult to say which of them was dominant. The word elements in
both marks were found similar to the eye. However they differed in pronunciation:
one was a Latin word and was to be pronounced as spelled and the other - an
English one and was to be pronounced according to the English language rules.
Semantically they were found to be different. As the Board noted, Lithuanian
consumers would recognize the word 'adventure". However they would hardly
know the meaning of the Latin word "Adventus" though they knew the
meaning of the word Adventas (Lithuanian for "Advent"), which called
for quite different associations than the word "adventure". Thus,
judging by the overall visual, phonetic and conceptual perception the marks
were found to be dissimilar.
 |
INTELS-LITHUANIA |