Non c’è confondibilità (somiglianza tra segni) se il marchio denominativo altrui è assai tenuamente evocato, anzi lasciato solo intuire

Si considerino i segni a paragone:

SEcondo il board of appeal EUIPO 19.02.2024, case R 1147/2023-1, Hyundai v. Global Trade services, non c’è somiglianza tra segni e quindi il primo è registrabile.

<<Contrary to the opponent’s claims, the Board agrees with the contested decision that consumers will not be able to read any letters in the contested sign but will perceive only vertical bars of different heights, two of which have dots. The contested sign is missing the horizontal lines, which is an essential component of the normal graphic representation of the verbal element ‘hyundai’, without which the relevant public will have difficulty in recognising that verbal element. Consequently, the contested sign will not be immediately and without any mental effort recognised as the verbal element ‘hyundai’. It is much more probable that the contested sign will be recognised only as the combination of some basic figurative elements. Only after an in-depth analysis, which consumers do not tend to perform (26/03/2021, R 551/2018-G, Device (fig.) / Device (fig.), § 52), might very stylised representations of the verbal element ‘hyundai’ be perceive>>

Marcel Pemsel in IPkat dà notizia della e link alla decisione.

Curiosamente una sua ricerca nella AI Gemini di Google gli dà questo esito: <<The image you sent me appears to be a trademark image filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It depicts a blue logo on a white background, but without any additional context, it is impossible to say for certain what the logo represents or what company or organization it belongs to. […] >>

A me invece, con uguale prompt,  Gemini dà esito opposto, riferendosi proprio alla parola Hyundai:

Ma l’AI non è il consumatore medio, essendo la sua logica operativa assai diversa da quella umana (parrebbe).