Lotta tra marchi figurativi (complessi): il caso Polo Club

Questi i due marchi in competizione:

Marchio anteriore
marchio successivo

Sovrapponibilità merceologica totale.

Decide Tribunale UE sentenz a19.10.2022 , T-437/21, Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. c. EUIPO + Lifestyle Equities CV interv.

Sentenza interessante che riassume il modo di condurre il giudizio nel caso di marchio figurativi rectius complessi.

Il Tribunale cofnerma l’ufficio mnel sensp cjhe c’è  il rischio di confondibilitò

<< 89   In the present case, it must be borne in mind, first, as is clear from paragraphs 45 to 51 above, that the Board of Appeal did not make any error of assessment in finding that the goods at issue were, in part, identical and, in part, similar to a normal to high degree.

90      Secondly, as has been stated in paragraph 60 above, since the goods at issue are not directly connected with polo playing, the signs at issue have a normal to enhanced degree of distinctiveness with regard to those goods.

91      Thirdly, as is clear from paragraphs 36, 68 and 81 above, the signs at issue are characterised by an average degree of visual similarity, a low degree of phonetic similarity and a high degree of conceptual similarity. The Board of Appeal was therefore right in finding that the signs at issue were similar overall to an average degree.

92      Accordingly, given that the factors relevant to the assessment of whether there is a likelihood of confusion are interdependent, as has been stated in paragraph 82 above, the identity of the goods, coupled with the high degree of conceptual similarity between the signs at issue, is sufficient to conclude, in the present case, that there is a likelihood of confusion with regard to the goods at issue which have been held to be identical (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 February 2004, Koubi v OHIM – Flabesa (CONFORFLEX), T‑10/03, EU:T:2004:46, paragraph 58).

93      As regards the goods which have been held to be similar to an average to high degree, that factor, combined with the signs’ similarity – above all their conceptual similarity – and with the average degree of distinctiveness of the signs with regard to those goods, is sufficient to conclude, as the Board of Appeal found, that a likelihood of confusion cannot be excluded (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 November 2016, POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN, T‑67/15, not published, EU:T:2016:657, paragraph 88).>>