EU-oppositieprocedure o.g.v. ouder Italiaans woordmerk “KICKERS” tegen een zwart-wit beeldmerk “SNICKERS” voor o.a. gereedschapshouders en werkkleding. Het BHIM wees de oppositie toe en het Gerecht bevestigt dit oordeel. Verwarringsgevaar wordt aangenomen: er is sprake van identieke waren en gemiddelde visuele en fonetische overeenstemming, terwijl beide tekens begripsmatig van geen enkele betekenis zijn voor het relevante (Italiaanse) publiek.
54 In this case, as was established at paragraph 28 above, the goods covered by the signs at issue are identical. As for the signs, they show an average degree of similarity from a visual and phonetic perspective (see paragraphs 38 and 47 above). In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal was correct to conclude, at paragraph 21 of the contested decision, that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
55 This conclusion cannot be invalidated by the argument concerning the high distinctive character of the mark applied for, since it is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. It is only the distinctive character of the earlier mark which must be taken into account in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, because its distinctiveness determines the scope of the protection of the earlier mark (see, to that effect, Case C‑498/07 Aceites del Sur-Coosur v Koipe [2009] ECR I‑7371, paragraph 84).
Lees het arrest hier.