Giudizio di confondibilità tra marchi denominativi : altro intervento europeo

Il Trib. UE 27.10.2021, T-356/20, Václav Jiruš, c. EUIPO, si pronuncia sull’oggetto confermando il giudizio di confondibilità già emesso dall’Ufficio.

I marchi a confronto sono SYNDICATE, e RAcing Syndicate (scritto con particolarità grafiche: v. sentenza linkata).

I generi merceologici sono vicini anche se non  sovrapponibili, §§ 3 e 6 (basso grado di affinità, § 53).

Quanto alla somiglianza tra segni, a parte la consueta triade di esame (visual phonetic conceptual) , § 55, il Trib. ricorda che l’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 (see judgment of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). 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 (judgments of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 42, and of 20 September 2007, Nestlé v OHIM, C‑193/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:539, paragraph 43). 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 (judgment of 20 September 2007, Nestlé v OHIM, C‑193/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:539, paragraph 43), § 56.

Questo in generale.

Nello specifico, poi, the term ‘Racing’ in the contested mark refers in general to the concept of races which take place in the context of sporting events. Consequently, as the Board of Appeal rightly pointed out, so far as concerns the goods in Classes 9 and 28 covered by the contested mark, the term ‘Racing’ refers to a possible use of the protective equipment in question, namely the fact that it is intended or suitable for being used in races which take place in the context of sporting events. It therefore has a weak inherent distinctive character. In view of that finding and, moreover, in the light of the fact that, in the contested sign, the terms ‘Racing’ and ‘Syndicate’ are the same size, the same colour and are stylised in the same way, the term ‘Racing’ cannot, contrary to what the applicant claims, be regarded as dominating the overall impression created by the contested mark. , § 65

Segue applicazione partita per singole classi merceologiche

Si tratta di precisazioni sempre utili al pratico, che vale la pena di rinfrescare .

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.