Cremilk vs./ Milkcrem

On July 14, 2006, the OHIM upheld that the two marks above were similar despite of the reverse order and of the additional M-letter in MILKCREM.

For the Examiner, the signs visually have the same word elements, phonetically are identical if inverted and are intellectually linked whereas of limited distinctiveness.

The decision is not so surprising in light of the multiple decisions denying similarity when syllables are reversed in signs which are to be compared. Moreover, it is open to criticism as signs with a limited distinctiveness usually are protected only against an (almost) identical reproduction.

Granting them a protection against a syllable reversion, despite the addition of a letter and the adoption of a device overextends their scope of protection.

Laisser un commentaire