Similarity between the goods and services

Watch On : Retail sale services

New OHIM practice for retail sale services The OHIM opposition guidelines amended since July, 2006, now states that the comparison of an earlier right for goods with a later sign for retail sale services is subject to the following similarity graduation: * retail sale without specification of the products are similar to all goods. * …

Watch On : Retail sale services Lire la suite »

Large similarity for unspecified Retail sale services

On September 24, 2008, the European Court of First Instance ruled that “retail and wholesale services, including on-line retail store services” could relate to all goods. The Court thus retained a similarity with “clothing, headwear, footwear, athletic bags, backpacks and knapsacks wallets” of the earlier mark. This establishes the scope of protection of retail sale …

Large similarity for unspecified Retail sale services Lire la suite »

Computer softwares” similar to «telecommunications”

The same day, the OHIM ruled the terms “telecommunications” and “computer software for online, interactive, CD-Rom and multimedia use” as similar. The argumentation is proper to have this similarity applied without need of online and interactive features of computer software.   Based on today’s provision of software by telecommunications services contracted, the Office broadly considered …

Computer softwares” similar to «telecommunications” Lire la suite »

Printers » not similar to «papers»

On January 22nd, 2008, the OHIM denied similarity between printers and papers. They were regarded of different nature and use and not both of high technology, their selling in the same shops being insufficient to consider their similarity. Surprisingly, the Office ruled at the same time a similarity between printers and cartridge as they are …

Printers » not similar to «papers» Lire la suite »

Lack of similarity between “wines” and “articles of glassware”

On June 12, 2007, the CFI denied similarity between wines and glassware items. These goods were regarded as distinct by nature and use, non interchangeable and not in competition nor produced in the same areas. Their selling or marketing in the same places or for common promotional purposes was not proven to be general enough …

Lack of similarity between “wines” and “articles of glassware” Lire la suite »