Merkenrecht. Beroep tegen de inschrijving van het woordmerk ,,MoMo Monsters” voor waren en diensten van klassen 14, 16, 25, 28, 30 en 41 door de houder van de oudere woordmerken en de oudere Gemeenschaps/internationale woord/-beeldmerken ‘MONSTER’ c.q. ‘MONSTER ENERGY’ voor waren en diensten van klassen 5, 9, 16, 18, 25, 29, 30, 32 en 33.
Het beroep wordt afgewezen. Er is geen verwarringsgevaar tussen het jongere woordmerk ‘MOMO MONSTERS’ en het Gemeenschapswoordmerk ‘MONSTER’. Het jongere woordmerk is ingeschreven voor o.a. koekjes en snoepjes waar het woordmerk "MONSTER" is ingeschreven voor o.a. melk- of koffiedrankjes. De aard van beide waren verschilt en dient niet hetzelfde doel. Bovendien zijn de waren niet complementair of inwisselbaar.
30. Fifth, the Court cannot uphold the applicant’s argument that the similarity between the goods at issue results in particular from the fact that they are sold in the same commercial establishments, share the same distribution channels and are intended for the same consumers. In the first place, it must be stated that the evidence put forward by the applicant with regard to the identical nature of the distribution channels relates only to certain specific outlets (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 March 2010 in 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie), T‑364/08, EU:T:2010:115, paragraph 39). Next, it should be recalled that the fact that the goods may be sold in the same commercial establishments, such as coffee chains, is not particularly significant, since very different kinds of goods can be found in those outlets, without consumers automatically attributing the same origin to them (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 October 2011 in Intermark v OHIM — Natex International (NATY’S), T‑72/10, EU:T:2011:635, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). Finally, in the light of the assessments carried out in paragraphs 23 to 29 above, it must be held that, even if the goods at issue are intended for the same consumers, the Board of Appeal acted correctly in concluding that those goods differed in nature and purpose and were neither complementary nor in competition.
Lees het arrest hier.
