Just published is a decision of the Court of First Instance of Paris which said that the association of the word ‘CIKATRICE’ (unusual spelling for the French word meaning ‘scar’) with 3 claws limited the interpretation to be given to the drawing, namely a scar which could have multiple origins. In the contested mark, the association of a panther drawing to a scar lead to believe that the claws originated from that animal what excluded any possible confusion.
Is there any need to say that this is an amazing position? Giving a prevalence to the intellectual level of comparison is already rare enough to be worth mentioning. But the reasoning behind this decision is really a weird approach insofar as the Court considers that the inclusion of a specific animal is sufficient to sufficiently move away from the earlier mark. Wasn’t the multiple origin that the 3 claws of the earlier mark could have proper to intellectually include the more specific panther origin of the claws of the later mark?