IP Talk

Change of case law as to phonetic similarity

The CJEC ruled on March 23,2006, that a mere phonetic similarity between two signs does not necessarily give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The appellant contested the earlier OHIM decisions which retained that the phonetic similarity was not counterbalancing the visual and intellectual differences between:               /                    ZIRH (Earlier trademark)        (contested application) The new […]

Change of case law as to phonetic similarity Lire la suite »

Retail sale services under the European recent practice

In eight months of birth, the definitive allowance of retail services under trademark registrations in the European Community has lead the OHIM President to further intervene and the Opposition division to show its difficulties in handling this new possibility.     Registration of retail sale services Community trademark was first granted by the OHIM Board

Retail sale services under the European recent practice Lire la suite »

PERFIX/CERFIX

On February 1st, 2006 – PERFIX/ CERFIX The European Court of First Instance upheld an opposition based on trademark CERFIX against trademark PERFIX as reproduced here above. (Community trademark application) VS./ (Earlier trademark opposed) The reasoning was to minimize the visual differences as regards the strong phonetic likeliness of the signs, especially because of the

PERFIX/CERFIX Lire la suite »

Possible specific trademarks comparison where watches are concerned

On January 12th, 2006, the European Court of First Instance ruled that these two trademarks were liable to cause confusion for products in class 14. The judge retains that the logo included in the Community trademark application was not sufficient to compensate the prefix Quant shared with the earlier mark to the extent that (i) this

Possible specific trademarks comparison where watches are concerned Lire la suite »

FOCUS TALK

In the context of an opposition proceeding, the specification of a trademark covering products/services not included in one class shows difference of practice between the French Trademark Office (INPI) and the European one (OHMI) when assessing the products and services similarity. The INPI systematically holds as ungrounded the opposition when the prior registration designates products/services not included

FOCUS TALK Lire la suite »