Orzecznictwo w zakresie prawa IP i prawa IT

Zagadnienia:
Leki, pharmaceuticals.
Powiązanie ekonomiczne.

Wyrok dotyczył znaków towarowych:
PRAZOL, PREZAL

Tezy i wnioski:
56. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, reached by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 12 of the contested decision, is based on a false premiss, namely that there are significant phonetic differences between the signs which outweigh the low degree of visual similarity between the marks in dispute. That assessment cannot however be accepted, since, as pointed out in paragraphs 42, 49 and 52 above, the signs in dispute are visually and phonetically very similar. The fact that the relevant public consists of end-consumers amongst others, whose level of attention can be considered to be above average, is not sufficient, given the identical nature of the goods concerned and the similarity of the signs in dispute, to rule out the possibility that those consumers might believe that the goods come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.

Tekst wyroku:
T-95/07, Aventis Pharma SA v. OHIM.

Opublikowany:
—

Zagadnienia:
Prawdopodobieństwo wprowadzenia w błąd (likelihood of confusion).
Wcześniejszy krajowy znak towarowy.

Znaki towarowe:
SEAT – hiszpański graficzny znak towarowy nr 2189822, MAGIC SEAT.

Wnioski:
57. Z powyższego wynika, że istnieje prawdopodobieństwo, iż właściwy krąg odbiorców może uznać, że dane towary pochodzą z tego samego przedsiębiorstwa lub ewentualnie z przedsiębiorstw powiązanych gospodarczo. A zatem Izba Odwoławcza nie popełniła błędu w ocenie, uznając, że w oczach właściwego kręgu odbiorcach istniało prawdopodobieństwo wprowadzenia w błąd lub skojarzenia.

Tekst wyroku:
T‑363/06, Honda Motor Europe v. OHIM.

Opublikowany:
—

Zagadnienia:
Brak prawdopodobieństwa wprowadzenia w błąd.

Znaki towarowe:
MEZZO, MEZZOMIX

Wnioski:
89. W rezultacie Sąd stwierdza, iż Izba Odwoławcza słusznie uznała, że konsument należący do właściwego kręgu odbiorców nie będzie oczekiwać, iż wina oznaczone zgłoszonym znakiem towarowym i napoje bezalkoholowe oznaczone wcześniejszymi znakami towarowymi będą pochodzić z tego samego przedsiębiorstwa, oraz że napoje te nie mogą zostać uznane za stanowiące elementy tej samej ogólnej gamy napojów mogących mieć wspólne pochodzenie handlowe.

Tekst wyroku:
T-175/06, Coca-Cola v. OHMI.

Opublikowany:
—

Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.
Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application.
Identity of services.
Similarity of signs.

Trade marks concerned:
WORLDLINK, LiNK.

Findings:
51. According to the case‑law, the restriction brought about by Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, according to which, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, OHIM’s examination is restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought, does not preclude it from taking into consideration, in addition to the facts expressly put forward by the parties to the opposition proceedings, facts which are well known, that is, which are likely to be known by anyone or which may be learnt from generally accessible sources (Case T‑185/02 Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM – DaimlerChrysler (PICARO) [2004] ECR II‑1739, paragraph 29).

52. In particular, the Board of Appeal may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods (see, to that effect, Case T‑402/02 Storck v OHIM (Shape of a sweet wrapper) [2004] ECR II‑3849, paragraph 58).

Judgment text:
T-325/04, Citigroup v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Issues:
Likelihood of confusion.
To annul Decision R 394/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 November 2003 and Decision 405/2002 of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 February 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought in Application No 1 042 613 in respect of articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear was refused on the basis of Opposition No B 242 059.

Trade marks concerned:
O orsay.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-39/04, Orsay v. OHMI.

Published:
—