Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de aanvrager van het beeldmerk met de woordelementen „RIENERGIE Cola” voor waren en diensten van de klassen 32 en 35 en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1116/2012 2 van de tweede kamer van beroep van BHIM houdende verwerping van verzoeksters beroep tegen de weigering van de oppositieafdeling om dit merk in te schrijven in het kader van de oppositie ingesteld door de houder van de gemeenschapsbeeldmerken met de woordelementen „Coca-Cola” voor waren en diensten van de klassen 30, 32, 33 en 35.
Het beroep wordt verworpen. Het BHIM heeft terecht geoordeeld dat er sprake is van verwarringsgevaar tussen het aangevraagde beeldmerk met de woordelementen “RIENERGIE Cola” en de oudere gemeenschapsbeeldmerken met de woordelementen “Coca-Cola.” Er is sprake van visuele, begripsmatige en fonetische overeenstemming, en de waren zijn identiek (o.a. alcoholvrije dranken).
44 In the third place, as regards the likelihood of confusion, it must be borne in mind that there are a number of similarities, in particular visual, between the mark applied for and earlier mark No 8792475 and that that earlier mark enjoys a reputation in respect of some of the goods in Class 32, especially when it is depicted ‘in its classic white cursive script on a red background’, as was pointed out by the Board of Appeal. Not only will be the likelihood of confusion be greater the more distinctive the earlier mark (see the case-law cited in paragraph 28 above), but the fact that a mark is registered in colour or, on the contrary, does not designate any specific colour can also not be regarded as a wholly negligible element in the eyes of consumers (see judgment of 9 April 2014 in Pico Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE), T 623/11, ECR, EU:T:2014:199, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). Consequently, the assessment of the likelihood of confusion in the present case, in the light, moreover, of the reputation of the earlier mark, must take into account not only the fact that the dominant element in the mark applied for reproduces one of the two word elements in the earlier mark, but also that the word element in question is depicted in the signs at issue in white cursive script on a red background. Lastly, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the goods at issue are identical. In those circumstances, in view of all of those factors, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there is a...
Het beroep wordt verworpen. Het BHIM heeft terecht geoordeeld dat er sprake is van verwarringsgevaar tussen het aangevraagde beeldmerk met de woordelementen “RIENERGIE Cola” en de oudere gemeenschapsbeeldmerken met de woordelementen “Coca-Cola.” Er is sprake van visuele, begripsmatige en fonetische overeenstemming, en de waren zijn identiek (o.a. alcoholvrije dranken).
44 In the third place, as regards the likelihood of confusion, it must be borne in mind that there are a number of similarities, in particular visual, between the mark applied for and earlier mark No 8792475 and that that earlier mark enjoys a reputation in respect of some of the goods in Class 32, especially when it is depicted ‘in its classic white cursive script on a red background’, as was pointed out by the Board of Appeal. Not only will be the likelihood of confusion be greater the more distinctive the earlier mark (see the case-law cited in paragraph 28 above), but the fact that a mark is registered in colour or, on the contrary, does not designate any specific colour can also not be regarded as a wholly negligible element in the eyes of consumers (see judgment of 9 April 2014 in Pico Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE), T 623/11, ECR, EU:T:2014:199, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). Consequently, the assessment of the likelihood of confusion in the present case, in the light, moreover, of the reputation of the earlier mark, must take into account not only the fact that the dominant element in the mark applied for reproduces one of the two word elements in the earlier mark, but also that the word element in question is depicted in the signs at issue in white cursive script on a red background. Lastly, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the goods at issue are identical. In those circumstances, in view of all of those factors, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there is a...