 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
| | | | | | |
1) Spirits International N.V. (AN), based on an earlier registration of the word and device mark STOLICHNAYA RUSSIAN VODKA STOLICHNAYA VODKA opposed to registration of the BRAVO VODKA LATVIJAS DEGVINS word and device mark in the name of Rigas Vini (LV). Both marks related to alcoholic drinks. The Board found the marks confusingly similar despite the differing word elements. The similarity finding was based on the general impression created by the devices (images of buildings) in the central part of the background, similar location of elements in the general composition, colours (white, red and golden), the form of the labels, the location and letter style of the word elements. Based on the findings the Board satisfied the opposition and revoked the opposed registration.
2) Mast -Jagermeister AG (DE) based on his two earlier JAGERMEISTER registrations
of (a word mark and a word and device mark) opposed to the word and device mark
MEDZIOTOJU ("Hunters'") in the name of Anyksciu vynas, LT.
The Board did not find the marks similar by "the first general impression"
the marks produced. This finding was based on the following considerations.
The word elements of the marks were not similar to the eye; they were inscribed
in different print types, on different backgrounds. The marks sounded different.
Though semantically the first part of the opponent's mark corresponded to the
Lithuanian word "medziotojas", the opponent's mark was a composite
word of two parts, and its meaning as a whole was not the same as that of the
Lithuanian word. Therefore it was concluded that the words in the marks were
semantically different. One of the opponent's and the opposed marks incorporated
an image of the head of an animal with horns, however the devices were not identical.
The dominating colours of the devices in the marks were different. Comparing
the integrity of the similar and dissimilar elements the Board found that the
dissimilar elements prevailed, and consequently the marks produced dissimilar
general impression. The opposition was rejected and registration of the opposed
mark remained in force.
3) PREPARADOS ALIMENTICIOS S. A. (ES) based on a number of earlier word and
device marks GALLINA BLANCA opposed to registration of a word and device mark
GALINTA in the name of Galinta (LT). Both parties' marks related to identical
or similar goods in classes 29 and 30. The Board found that by the overall impression
of the opposed mark was not confusingly similar to the opponent's marks. The
opponent's marks incorporated a bi-lingual combination of two words. The word
"Galinta" in the opposed mark is a Lithuanian proper noun and repeats
the symbolic part of the defendant's trade name. It was shown that the word
"gallina" in Italian stands for "hen, chicken" and the word
"blanca" in Spanish stands for "white". The graphics of
the words and the idea conveyed by the device elements were found totally dissimilar.
Different combinations of colours also contributed to creating different overall
perception of the marks by the consumer.
The opposition was rejected and registration of the opposed mark remained in
force.
4) Status finansine pramonine grupe (LT) based on an earlier registrations
of a word and device mark STATUS as well as its registered trade name opposed
to registration of a word and device mark "Status Club" in the name
of Vision International EESTI AS (EE). The Board found that the word "Status"
incorporated in both marks is a weak element being a synonym to "prestige",
"reputation", etc.. The other word in the opposed mark, the graphics
of the marks, dissimilar devices created different impression of the marks taken
as a whole. The opponent's mark related to a broad range of goods and services
including "film production, videotape film production, publication of books,
rental of radio and television sets, teaching of foreign languages, correspondence
courses, production of radio and television programmes". The opposed mark
related to entertainment, sports, active recreation, etc. and by their nature
these were found dissimilar to the opponent's services though they related to
the same international class.
The Board compared the opponent's trade name "Status finansine pramonine
grupe" with the opposed mark "Status Club". The mark was found
dissimilar to the symbolic part of the opponent's trade name due to the second
word in the opposed mark, which gave a different meaning to the combination
of two words. Note was also taken of the low distinctiveness of the word "status".
Besides, the trade name registration related to spheres of activities not relating
to the services in the opposed mark.
The opposition was rejected and registration of the opposed mark remained in
force.
5) UAB "Arimeksas", LT - holder of an earlier registration for the trademark ARIMEKSAS opposed to registration of the mark AMEKSAS in the name of UAB "Ameksas". Both marks related to services in class 35 however the Board noted that there were no evidences as to what goods the services in question were connected with. The marks were found dissimilar by the overall impression due to the different length of the coined words incorporated into the marks, different configuration of graphic elements and colours. Note was also taken of the fact that the word elements of the marks were also incorporated into the registered trade names of the parties. The opposition was rejected.
6) A local holder of the word mark "SZEKSZARDI KADARKA" for "Hungarian Szekszard wine (kadarka)" opposed to registration of the mark "KADARKA" for "kadarka type of wine" in the name of a German holder. Both marks were labels with figurative elements. The Board did not find the labels to be confusingly similar. Firstly, the marks differed in the number of words (one and two). The repeated word "kadarka" was found to be insignificant for the finding of similarity because it stood for the name of grapes the specific type of wine was produced from. Consequently, the main comparison was made by the overall visual impression created by the shape, the dominating colours of the labels and other device elements incorporated into them. The Board found the opposed mark to be dissimilar enough to allow for co-existence of the marks. The opposition was rejected.
7) Kraft Foods Holding, Inc. (US) being a holder of two earlier registered KRAFT
marks opposed to extension to Lithuania of the TELLO KRAFT international mark
in the name of a German holder. The opposition was based on the grounds of confusing
similarity between the marks and the goods. Though the Board found that the
goods were similar only in part, the marks themselves were found to be dissimilar.
In considering visual similarity account was taken of each of the opponent's
mark, one being a word mark repeating the first word of the opponent's trade
name and the other a word and device mark with the word "kraft" as
the dominating element. The opposed mark was a word and device mark. It consisted
of the words "tello kraft" inscribed in a very specific script, the
letter "k" in the word "Kraft" transforming into a picture
reminding of a kitchen utensil. There was also the descriptive phrase "frei
von tierischen Fetten" in German ('not containing fats"). Thus, the
word "Kraft" was not found to be dominating in the overall visual
perception of the opposed mark, besides, due to the specific script and device
elements the word was hardly legible as such. Anyhow, comparing the weight of
repeated and differing elements in the overall perception of each of the marks
the Board decided that the difference outweighed. The opposed mark was granted
protection.
8)
|
Opposing Marks
|
Opposed Marks
|
|
BUDWEISER
 |
 |
The holder of the word mark BUDWEISER and a number of word-figurative marks with the word BUDWEISER (labels for beer) opposed to registration of two word-figurative marks "BUDWEISER" (also labels for beer) in the name of a US applicant. The opposed marks were almost identical except that one of them was black-and-white and the other in colours. The opposing marks were registered for beer. The opposed marks for the heading of class 32 (all goods in class 32). The Board found that some of the goods were identical (beer) and the remaining goods in the opposed marks were similar to beer (by type, purpose of use and distribution channels), which the opposing mark was registered for. Comparing the marks by the criteria of overall perception the Board noted that a particular regard should be taken of the most important elements in each mark. The Board also noted that each of the compared marks incorporated a number of elements but the most important in all of them was the word BUDWEISER and it would create the risk of misleading consumers into thinking that the goods were produced by the same manufacturer, even though the marks incorporated other elements that were different. The opposed marks were found confusing similar and the registrations were invalidated.
9)
|
Opposing Marks
|
Opposed Mark
|
 |
 |
The local holder of two word figurative marks incorporating the word KLASSIKINIS
(Lithuanian for "classic") opposed to registration of the word-figurative
mark KLASIKINIS also in the name of a local holder. The opposing marks were
registered for "wine", the opposed mark for "sparkling wine".
One of the opposing marks was the word "KLASIKINIS" in a specific
handwritten typeface, the word "KLASIKINIS" was indicated as a disclaimed
element). The second of the opposing marks was a label of a specific shape in
golden, white, blue and dark blue colours, the holder's logo - a word and a
device, the word KLASIKINIS in golden colour on a dark blue background, in the
same typeface as in the first opposing mark, other words in an almost standard
upper typeface: "BRIUTAS", "METHODE TRADITIONELLE", "VIN
MOUSSEUX", and also figures indicating characteristics of the product.
The opposed mark was a set of two front and a back bottle labels in black, white,
golden and silver colours. The main front label was of a rectangular shape and
it incorporated a number of figurative elements: the picture of grapes, five
circles reminding of medals (inside the circles there were hardly discernible
letters making the word BOSCA), some other decorative elements and also figures
indicating characteristics of wine. The word "KLASSIKINIS" in the
centre of the label was written in white letters on a black background. Below
in smaller letters there were the words "PUSIAU SALDUS" (Lithuanian
for "semi-sweet"). The opposition was filed on absolute (deceptiveness)
and relative grounds. The Board rejected the opposition on absolute grounds
because, as the Board noted, the product characteristics specified on the back
label, which the opponent claimed to be deceptive, had no connection with the
contested trade mark as such. Besides, the back label was not protected and
the applicant did not enjoy any exclusive trademark rights connected with it.
The opposition was considered with regard to relative grounds - confusing similarity
to the earlier marks, however comparison was made only between the front label
in the opposed mark and the front label of the second opponent's mark. The Board
found that the most important element in both was the word "KLASIKINIS"
because it occupied the larger part in the centre of the marks. Graphic elements
were found not to have a strong impact on the overall perception because often
the consumer has no possibility to make a direct comparison between marks. The
marks were found confusingly similar and the opposed registration was invalidated.
 |
INTELS-LITHUANIA |