Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de houder van het internationale merk „BALEA” voor waren van de klassen 3, 5 en 8 en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 2432/20111 van de eerste kamer van beroep van het BHIM houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de afwijzing door de oppositieafdeling van de oppositie ingesteld door verzoekster tegen de aanvraag tot inschrijving van het woordmerk „CALDEA” voor waren en diensten van de klassen 3, 35, 37, 42, 44 en 45.
Het beroep wordt verworpen. Er is geen sprake van verwarringsgevaar tussen het aangevraagde woordmerk CALDEA en het oudere internationale merk BALEA voor o.a. zeep en parfum, nu er geen overeenstemming is tussen de betreffende tekens.
53 Consequently, it must be held that the Board of Appeal acted correctly in law in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, in its global assessment thereof.
54 The applicant’s arguments based on, first, the identity or similarity of the goods and services concerned; secondly, the reputation of the earlier mark, particularly in Germany; thirdly, the so-called low degree of attention of the relevant public and the method of distribution of the goods at issue and, fourthly, a judgment of the Landgericht Mannheim, could not invalidate that finding, even if they were not irrelevant. As those arguments are, in essence, identical to those already put forward by the applicant against the decision at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment in caldea, it is sufficient, in order to reject them, to refer to the findings set out, in that regard, by the Court in paragraphs 68, 69, 70 and 71 of that judgment, according to which, it is, in essence, not possible to conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion where there is no similarity between the signs at issue, a finding which is not called into question where the goods and services are identical or similar or where an earlier mark has a highly distinctive character.
55 In view of all of the foregoing, it must be held that the Board of Appeal acted correctly in establishing that the signs at issue were different and that there was no likelihood of confusion between them.
Lees het arrest hier.
↧
IEPT20140212, GEU, dm-drogerie markt v BHIM
↧