Il Trib. UE ha deciso la lite tra Almea di Svezia (filiale inglese) e l’opponente alla registrazione, Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH.
Il marchio complesso sub iudice:
L’anteriorità è data dal marchio denominativo (in tedesco, pare, ) << MEA >> , § 6.
Il secondo grado amministrativo dà ragione all’opponente.
Il Tribunale rigetta l’impugnazione della ditta anglo-svedese e accoglie le ragioni dei tedeschi , titolari dell’anteriotià : il marchio sub iudice è confondibile con essa.
Non ci sono passatggi particolarmente significativi nel ragionamento condotto dagli eurogiudici, alla luce ratione temporis del reg. 207/2009, art. 8.1.b.
Il territorio rilevante per il rischio di confusione è la Germania.
Il pubblico è quello di attenzione <da media ad elevata> (essendo i prodotti rivolti pure a specialisti (classi 5 e 8 Acc. Nizza)
Ci sono le solite osservazioni sulla comparazione dei segni: <<assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components … It is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element … That could be the case, in particular, where that component is capable on its own of dominating the image of that mark which members of the relevant public retain, with the result that all the other components are negligible in the overall impression created by that mark>>, § 26.
Forse il passaggio più interessante è sull’esame visuale e fonetico:
<<While it is true that the relevant public will perceive that the signs at issue differ visually due to the figurative elements, the greater number of letters and the group of letters ‘al’ in the sign applied for, that public will also perceive that the said signs share the element ‘mea’. On account of that common element, that public will perceive a certain visual similarity between the marks at issue, which may be described as low as noted by the Board of Appeal. Likewise, the signs at issue have a certain phonetic similarity due to the fact that the earlier sign contains the group of letters ‘mea’ which is entirely contained within the sign applied for. The relevant public will pronounce the sign applied for as a whole and the group of letters ‘mea’ in the sign applied for will be pronounced in the same way as in the earlier sign. The fact that the sign applied for begins with the letters ‘a’ and ‘l’ and that it is therefore longer to pronounce does not lead to the conclusion that there is no phonetic similarity at all between the signs at issue. The relevant public will perceive a low phonetic similarity due to the group of letters ‘mea’ common to those signs>>, § 33
E’ esatto che il segno << AL >> , all’nizio di quello sub iudice, non attiri l’attenzione, § 38 , 41 e 46.
<<In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, as a general rule, two marks are similar when, from the point of view of the relevant public, they are at least partially identical as regards one or more relevant aspects, namely the visual, phonetic and conceptual aspects (see judgment of 10 December 2008, MIP Metro v OHIM – Metronia (METRONIA), T‑290/07, not published, EU:T:2008:562, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). It is therefore not necessary that the signs at issue be conceptually similar in order to establish that there is an overall similarity between them>>, § 46
Non è possibile la comparazione concettuale, non avendo senso alcuno entrambi i segni, § 51