EU-oppositieprocedure o.g.v. ouder Gemeenschapsbeeldmerk (in kleur) “ENDURANCE” tegen het woordmerk “ENDURACE” voor autobanden, -buizen en -kleppen en diensten met betrekking tot deze waren. Het BHIM wees de oppositie toe en het Gerecht bevestigt dit. Verwarringsgevaar wordt aangenomen: er is sprake van identieke waren en soortgelijke diensten, en de tekens zijn in visueel opzicht soortgelijk en fonetisch gezien bijna identiek (het teken ‘endurace’ zou zelfs als een ‘misspelling’ van het oudere merk kunnen worden opgevat). Begripsmatig zijn beide tekens van geen betekenis voor het niet-Engels of Franssprekende publiek.
73 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal rightly concluded that the mark applied for and the earlier mark were similar visually and nearly identical aurally, because the word ‘endurace’, constituting the former, is very similar to the word element of the latter, ‘endurance’ (see the contested decision, paragraph 23).
78 Accordingly, and in the absence of any possibility of comparing the marks at issue conceptually, since the non-English- or non‑French‑speaking public would not derive any meaning from either of the marks at issue, the visual similarity and virtual phonetic identity lead to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion between those marks, as the Board of Appeal rightly concluded, as regards the goods and services found to be identical or similar (see paragraphs 33 to 46 above). Because of the strong similarities in question, such a likelihood of confusion cannot, moreover, be excluded even for a consumer who is highly attentive when purchasing the goods or choosing the services at issue. Such a consumer would be liable to confuse those marks, in particular where they are displayed on goods in combination with detailed technical information which particularly attracts the purchasers’ attention.
Lees het arrest hier
73 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal rightly concluded that the mark applied for and the earlier mark were similar visually and nearly identical aurally, because the word ‘endurace’, constituting the former, is very similar to the word element of the latter, ‘endurance’ (see the contested decision, paragraph 23).
78 Accordingly, and in the absence of any possibility of comparing the marks at issue conceptually, since the non-English- or non‑French‑speaking public would not derive any meaning from either of the marks at issue, the visual similarity and virtual phonetic identity lead to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion between those marks, as the Board of Appeal rightly concluded, as regards the goods and services found to be identical or similar (see paragraphs 33 to 46 above). Because of the strong similarities in question, such a likelihood of confusion cannot, moreover, be excluded even for a consumer who is highly attentive when purchasing the goods or choosing the services at issue. Such a consumer would be liable to confuse those marks, in particular where they are displayed on goods in combination with detailed technical information which particularly attracts the purchasers’ attention.
Lees het arrest hier