Sulla confondibilità tra marchi figurativo-denominativi

marchio posteriore (quello sub iudice) NB: In the application for registration, the applicant claimed the following colours: orange, red, silver, black and grey, § 4.
anteriorità fatta valere dall’opponente ex Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Merceologicamente sono largamente sovrapponibili (o comunqUe vicini).

Al registrante va male in sede amministrativa.

Gli va male anche davanti al Trib. UE, sent. 28.09.2022, T-454/21, G-Core Innovations Sàrl c. EUIPO+1.

Elemento dominante è la lettera G << 40   It follows that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding, in paragraphs 35, 36 and 41 of the contested decision, that the dominant element of the mark applied for was the figurative element representing a letter ‘G’, that the word element ‘core’ had an average degree of distinctiveness for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public and, lastly, that the element ‘labs’ was weakly distinctive both for the English-speaking and non-English-speaking parts of the relevant public.>>

Bassa somiglianza visiva, § 47.

Profilo fonetico: << 54 Therefore, in the light of the presence of the word element ‘core’ in both the signs at issue, its position in the pronunciation of the mark applied for and all the other phonetic elements of which it consists, which are liable to create impressions of phonetic differences between the marks at issue, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the signs at issue were similar to at least a lower than average degree.>>

Vicinanza concettuale (interessnte la distinzione a seconda della lingua): << 59  Therefore, having regard, first of all, to the lack of conceptual meaning produced by the figurative element and the element ‘G’ of the mark applied for, next, to the meaning conveyed by the element ‘core’ for the English-speaking public and its lack of meaning for the non-English-speaking public and, lastly, to the meaning, for the relevant English-speaking and non-English-speaking public, of the element ‘labs’ in the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the marks at issue were conceptually, first, dissimilar for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public and, secondly, similar to an average degree for the English-speaking part of the relevant public.>>

Giudizio complessivo (non facilissimo, stanti i presupposti di ridotta vicinanza e elevata attenzione del consumatore, ma con soprapponilità merceologica). << 73   Therefore, having regard, in particular, to the identity and similarity of the goods and services at issue, the low degree of visual similarity, the lower than average degree of phonetic similarity, the average conceptual similarity for the English-speaking part of the relevant public and, lastly, the lack of conceptual similarity between the marks at issue for the non-English-speaking part of the relevant public, offset, inter alia, by the existence of an average degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark in respect of that public, the Board of Appeal was right to find that there was a likelihood of confusion both for the English-speaking and non-English-speaking parts of the relevant public and that notwithstanding the degree of attention, varying from average to high, which that public may display in the choice of goods and services at issue.

74      In the light of all of the foregoing, the single plea in law of the action, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, must be rejected.>>