rischio di confondibilità – Lorenzo Albertini

La componente denominativa prevale su quella grafica del marchio: conferma del trend

Trib. UE 6 settembre 2023 , T-576/22, Bora creation slk c. EUIPO-Truie Skincare:

Marchio posterioore: denouinativo TRUE SKIN

Marchio anteriore:

Classe 3: make up e simili

Rifl soggettivO: consumatore spagnolo.

Il trib. conerma che non c’è rischio di confuisione

<<69 A global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, VENADO with frame and others, T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74).

70 In the present case, the Board of Appeal concluded that, in the light of the identity of the goods at issue, the average degree of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the below-average degree of visual similarity and the average degree of phonetic similarity of the signs at issue as well as the finding that the conceptual comparison remained neutral or that there were no relevant conceptual differences that could help to distinguish between the signs at issue, there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Spanish-speaking public which did not understand English, the level of attention of which was average.

71 In that regard, first, the applicant submits that the earlier mark is not essentially perceived as the word mark ‘true’, but that it is the figurative representation of that mark which makes it distinctive because, if that were not the case, that mark could not have been registered on account of the descriptiveness of the term ‘true’ for the English-speaking public. However, it must be pointed out that that argument is similar to that set out in paragraph 46 above and must therefore, for the reasons already stated in that paragraph, be rejected.

72 Secondly, as regards the conceptual comparison, which the Board of Appeal incorrectly found to be neutral, whereas the signs at issue are conceptually different, it must be held that that error of assessment does not have any consequences in the context of the analysis of the likelihood of confusion. As the Board of Appeal pointed out and as the Court has held in paragraph 67 above, the concept is conveyed by one of the two word elements in the mark applied for, namely the element ‘skin’, which is understood as referring to the skin and which is, at best, weakly distinctive with regard to the goods at issue, with the result that the conceptual dissimilarity cannot counteract the overall similarity between the signs at issue.

73 Consequently, in spite of the error of assessment which was made as regards the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue and although there are certain differences between those signs, it must be held that, following a global assessment, the Board of Appeal was right in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, on the part of the relevant public>>.

Somiglianza tra marchi A2 per prodotti alimentari : rigettta la domdanda registratoreia di Nestlè

Trib. UE 8 marzo 2023, T-759/21, Nestlè c. EUIPO- The a2 Milk Company Ltd, sull’oggetto.

ecco i marchi:

marchio chiesto in registrazione da Nestlè

Il rigetto amminsitrativo è confermnato dal Trib. UE:

<<It should be recalled that the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 47 of the contested decision, that the earlier international registration had an average degree of inherent distinctiveness. In addition, having concluded that the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue was neutral, it took into account, in the context of the examination of the likelihood of confusion, the identity or high degree of similarity of the goods at issue, the low degree of visual similarity and the high degree of phonetic similarity between those signs in order to reach the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion, in the present case, for the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large with a level of attention which could vary from average to high.

65 The Board of Appeal added, in paragraph 48 of the contested decision, that even though the visual aspect was likely to play a role in the selection of the goods concerned, it was highly conceivable that, confronted with the international registration at issue, consumers would perceive it as a variation of the earlier international registration, configured in a different way according to the type of goods covered. That would in fact lead them to believe that the identical or highly similar goods originate from the intervener or, as the case may be, from an undertaking economically linked to the intervener.

66 First, it must be found that the applicant is wrong to maintain that the Board of Appeal failed sufficiently to take into account the visual differences between the signs at issue. As stated in paragraph 55 above, the Board of Appeal did indeed note, in the context of its global analysis of the likelihood of confusion, that there was a low degree of visual similarity between those signs. That does not mean, however, that it disregarded the case-law on short signs. Although it is true that, in short signs, small differences may frequently lead to a different overall impression, that is not the case here, since a significant part of the relevant public readily recognises the element common to the signs at issue, which is their dominant element.

67 In the light of those considerations, it is necessary, secondly, to take into account the fact that the signs at issue are phonetically similar to a high degree, if not identical, which is also the case for the goods at issue. Those findings cannot be ignored in the global analysis of the likelihood of confusion, contrary to what the applicant appears to maintain, but also play an important role in accordance with the principle of interdependence as referred to in paragraph 61 above. It should be noted, in that regard, that, even though the goods at issue are sold on a self-service basis and the visual aspect is of some importance, that does not prevent the phonetic similarity between the signs from becoming apparent when the goods are sold orally or mentioned in radio advertisements, or in oral conversations which are likely to give rise to an imperfect recollection of the sign.

68 Similarly, having regard to the identity conferred by the element common to the signs at issue, it is conceivable, as the Board of Appeal stated, that consumers, confronted with the international registration at issue, will perceive it as a variation of the earlier international registration, configured in a different way according to the type of goods covered, which will lead them to believe that the identical or highly similar goods originate from the intervener or, as the case may be, from an undertaking economically linked to the intervener.

69 It is appropriate in that regard to reject the applicant’s argument that, in order to arrive at that finding, the Board of Appeal was wrong to refer to paragraph 49 of the judgment of 23 October 2002, Oberhauser v OHIM – Petit Liberto (Fifties) (T‑104/01, EU:T:2002:262), given that it applied to customs in the clothing sector and did not concern short signs the stylisation of which would be capable of indicating the commercial origin of a product, but signs consisting of the words ‘fifties’ and ‘miss fifties’, the addition of ‘miss’ being capable of being understood as a clothing line for women.

70 It should be noted, in that regard, that the Board of Appeal merely stated that there was a likelihood of confusion irrespective of the particular importance of the visual aspect, given that, visually, the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large will always perceive the same alphanumeric combination in the signs at issue, albeit stylised differently. Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant appears to state, it is conceivable that consumers in sectors other than the clothing sector, including the food and dietetic supplements sector, may believe that identical or highly similar goods originate from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings when faced with signs containing identical verbal or numerical elements, even if those signs are short.

71 Accordingly, it should be concluded that, in the light of the fact that the signs at issue are visually similar to a low degree and phonetically highly similar or even identical, that a conceptual comparison is not possible, that the goods at issue are identical or highly similar and that the level of attention of the Bulgarian-, Hungarian- or Latvian-speaking public at large may vary from average to high, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001>>.

Il Tribunale UE su una lite tra marhci denomainativo-figurativ (Tigercat v. Cat)

Trib. UE 13.07.2022, T-251/21, Tigercat International Inc., e c. EUIPO + Caterpillar interv., decide la lite sulla registrabilità del marchio denominativo TIGERCAT ala luce dell’anterità costituita da

I prodotti erano uguali (‘Specialised power-operated forestry equipment, namely, purpose built four wheel drive-to-tree and track type log bunchers, log loading machines, skidders and other forestry industry equipment, namely, bunching saws, bunching shears and components parts thereof’).

Il pubblico è molto attento, essendo professionale, § 23 ss

Predominanti nel secondo son entrambi gli elementi, alla pari. Nel primo, poi, la figura non oscura la parola, § 59.

Conferma che ricorre la visual similarity, § 64.

Ricorre anche quella fonetica, §§ 69-74. Qui l’interesse sta nel fatto che quello posteriore è composto e comprende quello anteriore.

Esatta è anche la stima di confondibilità concettuale (richiamo CAT), § 84.

In breve c’è rischio di confusione, § 94 e 97

Il Tribunale dunque conferma le decisioni amministrative

Tutela d’autore e di marchio sulla medesima creazione

Si vedano le seguent immagini:

Il titolare della prima creazione ha agito sia in base a diritto di autore che di diritto di marchio contro il titolare della seconda (anzi la terza, essendo la secodna solo la rappresetnazione geografica dello stato del Michigan)

la Corte distrettuale del Michigan però ha rigettato ogni domanda (6 maggio 2021, Case No. 1:20–cv–604, High Five Threads c. Michigan Farm Boureau).

Il preteso disegno contraffattore << contain a basic line drawing of two hands. High Five does not possesscopyright protection overasimple outlineof a human hand. There is nothing original in such a drawing; it is the most basic representation of something from nature, familiar to every child who has ever traced herown hand. Does the juxtaposition of two such drawings at a right angle, as in the Hand Map, result in copyright–protectible expression? If it does, the protectionfor that expression is “thin”at best,“comprising no more than...original contribution to ideas already in the public domain.” Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003).Two close–fingered hands arranged perpendicular to one another as arepresentation of Michigan is simply a generic expression of the “popular idea of using ones’ hands to indicate the shape of Michigan.” (See Pl.’s Resp.24, ECF No. 17.)High Five did not invent this idea (see id.at 25) and copyright does not protectit. At most, copyright protects original contributions to, or expressions of, that idea.

To be sure, High Five’s Hand Map is not devoid of protected expression. For instance, the folded pinkyand overlapping index finger are arguably protected elements. But those elementsarenot presentin MFB’s design; thus,MFB did not copy them>>, p. 7

Segue poi analisi della domanda di violazione di marchio.

Il giudizio di confonbilitòà va dato in base ai seguenti fattori (che sarebbe interssante paragonare a quelli italiani o europei): <<(1) strength of the senior mark; (2) relatedness of the goods or services; (3)similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) the intent of defendant in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.>> p. 9

Come detto, viene rigettata anche tale domanda: <<In summary, the complaint contains very few facts from which to reasonablyinfer a likelihood of customer confusion. Indeed, the facts allegedindicate that such confusion is very unlikely.Only the distinctiveness of High Five’s marksweighs in its favor. But that distinctiveness cannot overcome the dissimilaritiesbetween its marksand the designsused by MFB, as well as the dissimilaritiesbetweenthe parties’ goods and services. Thus, High Five falls far short of stating a plausible claim under the Lanham Act>> p. 13.

Altro tema interessante è quello del rapporto tra le due tutele sulla medesima creazione: necessità di ponderato coordinamento dogmatico o non ci sono attriti?

sul giudizio di contraffazione di marchio

Il Tribunale UE, T 56/20, 24.02.2021, Bezos Famuily Foudnation c. EUIPO-SNCF, porta altro materiale per la comprensione di come vada condotto il giudizio di contraffazione.

Diritto pertinent: reg. 2017/1001.

La fondazione aveva chiesto la registrazione di marchio denominativo VROOM in classe 9 per <<Computer software, namely a mobile application for providing information and learning and educational activities and games in the field of early child development and early childhood education’.>>

E’ fatta opposizione per anteriorità costituta da marchio denominativo POP & VROOM per classi 9 e 42.

La fase amminisrativa va male alla Fondazione.

le va male pure la fase giudiziale, davanti al Tribunale, che rigetta l’impugnaizone.

La sentenza contiene i soliti passaggi logico-giuridici per la conduzione del giudizio, che però è sempre utile ripassare.

V. spt. il § The likelihood of confusion , §§ 48 ss e l’eccezione della Fondazione di non essere concorrente dell’opponente al momento del deposito. Giustamente il T. ricorda che potrà esserlo in futuro: <Moreover, it should be borne in mind that once a mark has been registered its proprietor has the right to use it as he or she sees fit so that, for the purposes of assessing whether an application for registration falls within the ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, it is necessary to ascertain whether there is a likelihood of confusion in all the circumstances in which the marks at issue might be used (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 12 June 2008, O2 Holdings and O2 (UK), C‑533/06, EU:C:2008:339, paragraph 66). Thus, it should be noted that the factors which may vary over time and depend on the wishes of the proprietors of those marks are not suitable for the purposes of the prospective analysis of the likelihood of confusion (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 2007, T.I.M.E. ART v OHIM, C‑171/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:171, paragraph 59). It follows that the applicant’s claim that it was not, at the time when the action was brought, a competitor of SNCF Mobilités does not rule out those marks from, in the future, being used so as to create, on the part of the relevant public, a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision>, § 53.

Confondibilità di marchi calcistici presso l’EUIPO

Nella lite (amministrativa, per ora) tra l’allenatore (ex calciatore) Klinsmann (poi solo K.) e Panini spa (poi solo: P.), l’EUIPO in appello dà ragione al primo.

Si tratta della decisione della 4° commissione di appello 28.09.2020 , Klinsmann c. Panini spa, caso R 640/2020-4, leggibile tramite il link offerto in ipkat.com, post di N. Malovic del 12.10.

P. fa opposizione alla registrazione di marchio depositato da K.

Il marchio di K. è

P. oppone anteriorità costitituite da una serie di marchi italiani ed europei (v. § 3, p. 2-3). Si veda nella decisione linkata la loro rappresentazione grafica

Il primo grado amministrativo è favorevole a P., l’appello invece a K.

Per il Board di 2° grado i marchi a-b-c-edi P. non sono confondibili con quello di K. Quanto ai marchi d)-f), l’opposizione è respinta perchè non è stato provato l’uso , avendone K. fatta richiesta ex art. 47/2 reg. 2017/1001.

Ebbene, quanto ai marchi di P. indicati come a)-b)-c), l’Ufficio dice che non sono confondibili con quello di K., dato che quest’ultimo -in sostanza- non si capisce cosa rappresenti:

<< 31 Due to the black design no human traits are visible from the element inside the circle. It cannot be determined in the first place whether the black circular ele-ment on top is a ball at all and if so, whether or not it is a football. It cannot be determined either whether the upward stroke represents a leg or an arm. Having the leg above one’s body is certainly an unnatural movement for a human being, and would rather be expected from a gymnastic move, if at all. One possible interpretation is that the ball is held or thrown with the hand of the person. Then the scene would represent a movement in a handball game [!!!].
32 Three strokes go rather downwards. These are markedly thinner than the upward stroke. If the upward stroke represented a leg, one would wonder where the sec-ond leg is. One would wonder which of the three downward strokes is ‘the second leg’ (or the ‘second arm’) given that all three are almost as thick as the others. It is only with a very analytical view that one can find out which of the three points represents a hand and which one a shoed foot. One would also wonder where the thorax is. Unlike the earlier remark the younger sign does not offer any three-dimensional perspective. For example it cannot be determined whether what the opponent interprets as the human head is ‘behind’ or on the same level as what, according to the opponent, should be ‘the leg’. So the younger mark looks rather Spiderman-like >.

E ancora: < 41 However no clear concept can be attached to the contested sign. It cannot be said that it unambiguously represents a football player – a handball player, or even a human being at all. Any ‘concept’ to be derived from the younger sign would re-quire an analytical approach, a detailed comparison (side by side with the earlier mark, which is not the proper method) and/or a detailed knowledge about the var-ious movements or techniques possible to shoot a ball. In particular it cannot be said that the younger sign represents the so-called scissors shot. 42 As no clear concept can be attached to the younger sign, there is no conceptual similarity with the earlier marks.>.

Qui mi limito ad esprimere forti perplessità su tale giudizio. A chi ha un minimo di (passata …) pratica calcistica o anche solo di interesse per essa (elemento certamente presente nell’utente medio dei prodotti chiesti in registrazione), pare evidente che si tratti di rovesciata/sforbiciata calcistica. Il giudizio del Board risulta dunque incomprensibile.