December 16, 2005 -OHIMWORLD/ WORLDBEDS
WORLD is usual for products and services connected to travel because of its ability to convey a positive image to the prospective travelers». Then, OHIM denies likelihood of confusion between and .


It is interesting to reconsider the case rendered by the TGI of Paris on December 7th, 2005 (Pierre Aubry and ADAGP vs. Alain WEILL and St Le Chercheur Midi Editeur), as it constitutes a great illustration of the many stakes affecting the world of art today.

In this case, a collector and expert, by authorizing the reproduction of unpublished drawings belonging to him, and by attributing them to Francisque Poulbot in a book entitled, The Parisian of Poulbot, of which he is the author, together with the company, LE CHERCHE MIDI EDITEUR, which sold and offered the above mentioned book in the trade as early as November 21, 2001 were condemned in solidum for having attacked the rights of paternity of Francisque Poulbot on his works of art as well as their integrity because they acted without the authorization of Mr. AUBRY, beneficiary of Francisque Poulbot, and because these drawings were later recognized as being forgeries.

In a day when new technologies, especially digital ones, facilitate the identical reproductions of pre-existing works of art, the experts in the world art market are highly solicited and the collectors must be extremely vigilant. 

Nicolas Sarkozy Vs/ Kärcher

On June 2005, at the moment of the Suburbs Crisis, Nicolas Sarkozy announce he wished to clean with a kärcher the 4000 estate of La Courneuve.

During the presidential campaign, these remarks were often taken again. However, KÄRCHER is a trademark owned by the company of the same name which is specialized in the manufacture of the high pressure cleaning apparatus.

In order to put a stop to the negative image due to Nicolas Sarkozy speech, the representative of the Company KÄRCHER France made a news release, on last March, in which he told that the company dit not recognise it in the recent amalgam at which is associated its name.

In addition, this news release aimed to obviate the forfeit of the trademark KÄRCHER by bringing back that it was a registered trademark and not a common noun despite that incoming into edition 2007 of the French dictionary Petit Robert.

The likelihood of forfeit is known by others trademarks which suffered of their well-known. For example, in the United-States, Google got into the dictionary and its owner had to react by diffusing media campaign which was largely criticise by the public.

It be required to hope that the communication by the owners made for avoid their trademarks forfeit.



On January 9, 2006, the OHIM Opposition Division ruled the above similarity considering that the said accessories are intended to replace broken or worn-out parts of vehicles and that they will not only be produced by companies involved in spare parts but also by vehicle manufacturers.
This common sense decision seems to go against the HX vs./ XH Decision of July 4, 2001, which held that “vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water” were dissimilar with “tyres and tubes for vehicle wheels, and “tyre casing and inner tubes”. The compared goods are neither in direct competition with each other nor do they have the same origin.
Nevertheless, the identity between the trademarks in the January decision certainly had an influence although trademarks HX vs./ XH are not strictly identical.