Европейският съд се произнесе по дело T-344/09 касаещо опит за регистрация на европейска марка Cosmobelleza за класове 35 и 41.
Срещу тази марка е подадена опозиция от страна на Hearst Communications, Inc.на основата на нейти по-ранни марки COSMOPOLITAN, COSMO, COSMO TEST, регистрирани за териториите на Великобритания, Испания, Франция, Италия, Германия и Австрия. Марките са за класове 16, 25, 38, 39, 41.
OHIM отхвърля опозицията. Това решение е потвърдено и от Европейския съд. Доводите са:
- Пазарите в отделните държави и потребителите им не се застъпват, така че потребителите не биха възприели заявената марка, като такава част от фамилия марки;
- Според съда концептуалните разлики в значенията на марките водят до липса на възможност за объркване сред потребителите.
- Не са били предоставени доказателства за това, че думата Cosmo е водещ елемент в по-ранните марки.
Поради всичко това съда счита, че марките не са сходни.
English version
The European Court ruled in Case T-344/09, which concerns the attempt at registration of European trademark Cosmobelleza for classes 35 and 41.
Against this mark was filed opposition by Hearst Communications, Inc., which was based on earlier marks COSMOPOLITAN, COSMO, COSMO TEST, registered in the UK, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and Austria. These trademarks were for classes 16, 25, 38, 39, 41.
Against this mark was filed opposition by Hearst Communications, Inc., which was based on earlier marks COSMOPOLITAN, COSMO, COSMO TEST, registered in the UK, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and Austria. These trademarks were for classes 16, 25, 38, 39, 41.
OHIM rejected the opposition. That decision was upheld by the European Court. The arguments are:
- the markets and their respective consumers did not overlap so the mark applied for would not be perceived as forming part of a series of marks owned by the applicant;
- according to court conceptual differences in the meanings of marks lead to a lack of opportunity for confusion among consumers.
- it has not been provided any evidence that the word Cosmo is a leading element in the earlier marks.
Because of all the Court held that the marks were not similar.
- the markets and their respective consumers did not overlap so the mark applied for would not be perceived as forming part of a series of marks owned by the applicant;
- according to court conceptual differences in the meanings of marks lead to a lack of opportunity for confusion among consumers.
- it has not been provided any evidence that the word Cosmo is a leading element in the earlier marks.
Because of all the Court held that the marks were not similar.
