Il Tribunale UE sul giudizio di confondibilità di due marchi denominativi uguali (quindi con esame della vicinanza merceologica)

Ripasso del diritto ue sul giudizio di somiglianza/affinità in tema di confondibilità di marchi in Trib. UE T-738/20 del 08.06.2022, Deutschtec GmbH, c. EUIPO.

Interessante è tra l’altro che il secondo depositante aveva sollevato l’eccezione di nullità del primo marchio perchè troppo vaga la descrizione dei prodotti o servizi in domanda (metal goods).

Eccezione insidiosa, a prima vista, che però il tribunale rigetta, § 29 ss, anche valoerizzando la precisazione “specialmente etc.” che seguiva la prima indicazione vaga (metal goods), § 36.. : << It has been held that, in so far as it is used in a description of goods, the expression ‘in particular’ is, in the first place, merely indicative of an example (judgments of 9 April 2003, NU-TRIDE, T‑224/01, EU:T:2003:107, paragraph 41; of 12 November 2008, Scil proteins v OHIM – Indena (affilene), T‑87/07, not published, EU:T:2008:487, paragraph 38; and of 14 December 2011, Völkl v OHIM – Marker Völkl (VÖLKL), T‑504/09, EU:T:2011:739, paragraph 119). Used in a list of goods, the expression ‘in particular’ serves to distinguish goods which have a specific interest for the proprietor of a mark without, however, excluding any goods from the list (judgment of 14 December 2011, VÖLKL, T‑504/09, EU:T:2011:739, paragraph 119). However, in the second place, still according to the case-law, the expression ‘in particular’ cannot be considered to be insignificant or devoid of any usefulness and may serve, above all in the case of a vague and imprecise indication, to clarify for traders and the competent authorities, the wishes of the trade mark proprietor regarding the extent of the protection which he or she intended to give to his or her mark when he or she filed the application for registration of that mark (judgment of 18 October 2018, Next design+produktion v EUIPO – Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna), T‑533/17, not published, EU:T:2018:698, paragraphs 64 and 65). It follows that, if a vague term is followed by another term which expressly identifies the goods or services by way of example, it is then possible to carry out a comparison with that specific term (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 June 2020, Pavel v EUIPO – bugatti (B), T‑114/19, not published, EU:T:2020:286, paragraph 52)>>.

Il Trib. circa l’indicazione dei prodotti in domanda non cita Corte di Giustizia 29.01.2020, C-371/18, Sky c. SkyKick su cui mio post 29.01.2020.

Quanto al vero e proprio giudizio sulla vicinanza merceologica, così osserva in generale: << In order to address in a useful manner the applicant’s complaints alleging infringement by the Board of Appeal of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, it must be pointed out at the outset, in addition to what has been stated in paragraph 17 above, that, according to the case-law, where the goods covered by the earlier mark include the goods covered by the mark applied for, those goods are considered to be identical (see judgment of 24 April 2018, Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO – Leedsworld (ZOOM), T‑831/16, not published, EU:T:2018:218, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited). The same is true as regards services. However, it has been held that, where there is only some degree of overlap between certain services, those services cannot be considered to be identical but are similar (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 March 2013, Event v OHIM – CBT Comunicación Multimedia (eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS), T‑353/11, not published, EU:T:2013:147, paragraph 44).

49      In so far as the applicant seeks to allege that the Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, it must be stated, in addition to what has been pointed out in paragraphs 18 to 21 above, that, according to the case-law, in assessing the similarity of the goods and services at issue, all the relevant factors relating to those goods and services should be taken into account. Those factors include, in particular, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 23). Other factors may be taken into account such as the distribution channels of the goods concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2007, El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Bolaños Sabri (PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños), T‑443/05, EU:T:2007:219, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). As regards, in particular, the complementarity of the goods and services, it must be borne in mind that complementary goods or services are those between which there is a close connection, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other with the result that consumers may think that the same undertaking is responsible for manufacturing those goods or for providing those services (see judgment of 22 September 2021, Sociedade da Água de Monchique v EUIPO – Ventura Vendrell (chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH), T‑195/20, EU:T:2021:601, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited)>>.

Ninete di nuovo ma un ripasso, appunto.

Poi applica i criteri generali alle singole classi sub iudice.