8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

1/33

Lik e//hoo d of con fusion - Sim //af/ty of signs

THE MANUAL CONCERNING OPPOSINJLMsTINGSR TTPART 2

CHAPTER 2:LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

C. SIMILARITY OF SIGNSse , s i"c i 2 ff

In k0 1 1 - 0 9 - 1 6Akt...................................Aktb iI.........................

The Manual co ncerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 1

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

2/33

Lik el ihoo d of con fusion - Sim ilari ty of signs

INDEX

CHAPTER 2: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION ................................................ 3

C.IMILARITY OF SIGNS ...................................................................... 3PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE COMPARISON.............................3Il .R ITER IA .............. . .................. . ......................................................... 4

1 . Reference basis for the comparison..............................................42 . Overallimpression.......................................................................... 42 . 1 .istinctive and dominant components........................................ 42 .2 .ssessment of the overall impression ........................................ 53 . Visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison .................................. 73 . 1 .eneralprinciples ....................................................................... 83 .2 .isual comparison: practical criteria ......................................... 1 03 .3 .honetic comparison: practical criteria..................................... 1 13.4.onceptual comparis on: practical criteria ....... . ......................... 1 24. Particular is sues as regards different kinds of signs ..................... 214.1 .umber of letters and structure ................................................ 2 24.2.engthof signs ......................................................................... 2 24.3.eginningof signs................................................................... 2 44.4.equence of syllables, rhythm and intonation.......................... 2 55 . "Compos ite" signs-igns that are partly or wholly inciuded in theothersign ...................................................................................... 2 65 . 1 .ign s con taining figurative an d w ord co m po ne nts ....... . ........ ... 2 65.2 .Multi-part" wordsigns .............................................................. 2 85 .2 . 1 .Similarity ....... . ..................................................................... 2 85 .2 .2 .istinctiveness of the earlier sign....................................... 3 05.3 .a m e s ...................................................................................... 31

5.3.1. (Business) names in combination with other components..315 .3 .2 .irst and family names....................................................... 31

The Manual concerning Op posi tion, Part 2, Chapter 2C aqe 2

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

3/33

Likel ihood of confusion - Simi lar i ty of s igns

CHAPTER 2: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

C. SIMILARITY OF SIGNS1 .RINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE COMPARISONThe same basic principles explained above under Chapter 2 B for thesimilarity of goo ds and se rvices ap ply to the eva lua tion of similarity of signs.He nce, the similarity of s igns

is a conditio sine qua non for a find ing o f likelihood of confusion ;- must be eva lua ted in view of the likeliho od o f confusion, that is in viewof the conflicting marks being capable of suggesting that the goods orse rvices ha ve the ir origin in the s ame o r economically-linked u nde rtakings;The p rinciple is:Signs are s imilar if under the a ssu mption tha t the go ods are identical and theearlier sign has a normal or high degree of distinctiveness, there would bel ike lihood o f confusion in the se ns e tha t the relevant pub lic might be lieve th atthe go ods carrying the young er mark and the goo ds carrying the ea rlier markcome from the same or economically-linked undertakings .W hen th e s igns are no t similar, a discussion of the similarity of go od s a nd o fthe overal l ass es sment of LaO s hal l be s kippe d.In this case , the follow ing stan dard text shou ld be use d:"According to Articie 8(1)(b) C TMR, the similarity of the signs is a condition fora find ing of l ike liho od of confus ion . Since th e s igns a re clea rly dissimilar, on eof the n eces sa ry con ditions conta ine d in Article 8 (1) (b) C TMR is not fulfi lled,and the o ppos it ion must b e rejected. This result w ould not alter even in caseof identity of the go ods or serv ices, as s igns cannot b ecome similar be causethey a re a ppl ied to identical goo ds."W here a bso lu te d iss imilar ity o f s igns is less ob v ious and w here s ome of thegoo ds a re iden tical and others s imilar, the fol low ing text s hould be use d:"As follows from the analysis above, the signs have many differences invisua l, aural and conceptua l respe ct. Taking into a ccoun t the a verage deg reeof distinctiveness of the earlier mark, those differences suffice to safelyexclude a l ike liho od of confusion in the te rritory in w hich the ea rlier ma rk isprotected, i.e. ..., even for the identical goods "clothing" in class 25.C ons eq ue ntly, a fortior i, there can b e n o l ike lihoo d of confusion in resp ect ofthe remain ing g ood s o f the C TM ap plicat ion, w hich are no t identical to a ny ofthe go ods of the ea r lier mark. Therefore i t is no t necess ary to procee d to a nana lysis o f the s imilar ity of the rema in ing goo ds of the CTM app licat ion w ithThe Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Cha pter 2C age 3

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

4/33

Lik e//hood of con fusion - Simi/arity of signs

goo ds o f the ea rlier mark and the o ppos it ion must be rejected for all goodsand se rvices."

II.RITERIA1. Referenc e basis for the compa risonWhen assessing the similarity of signs, in principle the signs have to becompared in the form they enjoy protection. That means that the earlierregistered mark and contested C TM applications o nly have to be as ses se d intheir registered/applied for form. The a ctual or pos sible use of the reg isteredmarks in ano ther form is irreleva nt to th e compa rison of signs.. For the e ffecto f disclaimers, see C h a pte r 2 D , II.The a sse ssme nt of similarity must be carried o ut in relation to the resp ectiveterritory where the earlier mark is protected. Where the earlier mark is anational mark, the relevant criteria must b e a nalysed in relation to the releva ntpu blic in tha t pa rticular cou ntry. Thus , the similarity may be diffe ren t fromcountry to country because of differences in meaning and pronunciation.W hen the ea rlier mark is a CTM a pplication or registration, the ana lysis mustexten d to w hole C ommunity, and prese nce of similarity in o ne pa rt of it w illsuffice.2. Overall im press ion2.1. Distinctive and dominant componentsThe Co urt stated in Sabel that the global appreciation of the visua l, au ral orconceptua l similarity of the marks in qu es tion mus t be b as ed on the ove rallimpres sion g iven by the marks, bea ring in mind, in pa rticular, the ir distinctiveand dominant compone nts. The ave rage consu mer normally perceives a markas a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various detailsSabe l ,parag raph 2 3). It should be pointed o ut that in that case the conflicting marksconsisted of a leaping wild animal as the earlier mark and a similar animaltoge ther w ith the w ord SABEL in the later mark.This find ing of the Co urt esta blishe s the tw o follow ing b asic principles:- the a sse ssment o f similarity of signs mus t not only be ba sed on s omeisolated elements, but on the global appreciation of both signs undercompa rison;- the distinctive and dominant components are " in particular" importa ntfor the eva luation o f similarity betw ee n signs.The Cou rt has us ed the concept of istinctive and dominant components in age ne ral mann er and w ithout an y further spe cif ication. It is how eve r obviousthat the a sse ssment of the elements forming the s ign requires a n agree mentThe Manual con cerning Opp osit ion, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 4

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

5/33

Lik e//hoo d of con fusion - Sim ilari ty of signs

as to the criter ia that w ill be us ed to ident i fy the distinctive and the dominantelements.The not ions o fdistinctive and dominantdescribe the w e i l-known pheno menonthat signs, unless they are unitary (such as single word, a single figure, asingle colour), are perceived in normal life by focussing on the dominantelement, that w hich d ist inguishes the s ign. At a ne xt leve l o f ana lys is , beyondthe mere visual perception, judgement is involved, and it is here that"d ist inct ive" o bta ins is ad di t ion al value as a to o l: s igns or e leme nts o f s ignsw hich ha ve no d ist inct iven es s in the lega l se ns e, i.e . are d es cript ive, ge ne r icor for other reas ons non -d ist inct ive for the g oo ds or se rv ices invo lved , wi ll belarge ly or tota l ly d isreg arde d w he n d ete rmining s imilar ity in the leg al se nse ,how ever much they may, as a ma tter o f mere pe rcep t ion, dominate the s ign.The pe rcep t ion o f w hat is do mina nt or d ist inct ive w ill a lso va ry de pe nd ing o nw he the r the a na lysis centers o n visual, oral or conce ptua l similar it ies .2.2. Assessment of the overall impressionThe assessment of the s imilarity of the signs is based on the fact that there levan t pub l ic does not tend to an alyse a s ign in de ta il whe n confronted by it .The public, however, pays more attention to the distinctive and dominantcompon ents o f s igns. This may be a me re ly uncons c ious ref lex, s ince the eyefocuse s o n the d ist inct ive a nd d ominan t compone nts more rea d ily than o n theles s d ist inct ive compo ne nts. Cons ume rs may, how eve r, cons c ious ly focus o nthe more distinctive components of a sign in order to differentiate it moreea si ly from the ma rks a lready know n in the re levan t market.Furthermore, the d i fferent iat ion betw ee n d i fferent compo nen ts o f s igns takesaccount o f the fact that consu mers, in g ene ra l, do not ha ve bo th s igns in frontof them at the time of being confronted with either of them, such as inad ver t is ing, o r w he n pu rcha s ing certa in go ods o r serv ices . Wh en conf rontedwith a sign, they rather compare it with their recollection of signs a lreadyknow n fo r the re l evan t a rea o f goods and se rv ices . How eve r , consumers donot clea rly recol lect a ll the d eta i ls o f the s igns, but ra ther the ir more dist inct ivean d dominan t compo ne nts. The s ign a t hand a nd the " impe rfect reco l lect ion"of another sign are the basis on which consumers evaluate whether therespective signs are the same or similar ones or not (seeloyd, paragraph26) .Experience shows that similarities of signs are more s ignificant thandissimilar it ies for the o utcome of this eva lua tion.Therefore, the comparison of signs will always have to take into accountw hethe r some compo nen ts are more d ist inct ive and do minan t than o thers are.This applies to both signs under comparison. The pertinent criteria are notonly thos e a ppl ied w hen eva luat ing the o vera l l d ist inct ivene ss o f the s ign, butalso o ther factors, such a s a differe nt grap hical prese ntation or a different sizeof the va r ious compone nts.

The Manual con cerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 5

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

6/33

Lik e//hoo d of confusion - Similarity of signs

How ever , the Cou rt d id not de fine w hat is to be regarded as a " component " o fs igns . Th is cann ot d ep en d o n w he ther a s ign is v i sua lly d iv ide d in to d i fferen tparts. Rather the perception of the sign by the relevant public is de cis ive. Therelevant public often regards one-word-signs as composed of differentelemen ts, in pa rticu lar , in case s w he re a p art has a c lea r and e vide nt mea ningw here as the rest is mea ningless, or whe re there are v isua l ind icat ions such asa da sh o r the u se of d ifferent type s izes a nd / or typefaces. In such case s, theelements of one-word-signs could be regarded as "components" asment ione d by the Co urt.10111998 FR KOVITAL VITAL No LoC18811999 EN ACTILINE AKTIVIN No LoC171312000 EN TRAXDATA MAXDATA NoLoC255812000 EN FEMINEX FEMIPRES No LoC67412001 EN BRANDSHAPE BRANDCAST NoLoC734 501 (10/08106 ) FR VITAL MUSSVITAL No LoC676 751 (27107106 ) EN PARALLAX PARAFAST No LoCHo w eve r, it is not app ropr ia te to sp lit up a s ign artificially, that is, in thosecase s w he re it is no t like ly that the pub lic w ill pe rceive the s ign as compo se dof d if fere nt eleme nts. In th is evaluat ion, it sho uld be ta ken into accoun t thatthe average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does notprocee d to a na lyse its var ious de ta i ls .4 4 1 1 9 9 9 EN teel i TELIA Lo C91111999 EN VICOUNT VICO No LoC15 0311999 EN VASANIT SANIT No LoC1303/1999 ,confirmedyo A ENDec. R 2921 20 00 -3 TARAFORTE TARKA No LoC1 4 7 6 1 1999 EN GRANDITROPIN GENOTROPIN No LoCR0230/2000 - 1 ,confirmedyFI EN BUDMEN BU D Lo CDec. T-129 /01R0798/2001 -1,confirmedyFI EN CHUFAFIT CHUF I No LoCDe c. T-11 7/02R0714 /2002 - 2 ,confirmedyFI EN ECHINAID ECHINACIN NoLoCDe c. T-20 2/04R061012001-4 ,confirmedyFI EN Variant DERBIVARIANT Lo CDec. T-31 71 03R023812002-2 , No LoC,overturnedyFI EN WESTLIFE WEST CFI-LoCDec. T-221 04 lLess d is t inct ive or do minant parts always have to be taken in to account w henThe Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 6

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

7/33

Lik elihoodof confusion - Similarity of signs

eva luat ing the s imilar ity of s igns. The Co urt made c lea r that the compar ison ofthe marks has to be based on their overall impression. The less distinctivecompone n ts have s ome i n fluen ce on th is a s w e i l. These compone n ts a re o fless importance in this respect than the distinctive and dominant ones.Neve rtheless , they may b e the factors wh ich t ip the ba lance in the e va luat ionof s imilarity.35511999 (EN) CAMOMILA INTEA / INTESA, (No LoG) confirmed by BoADec. 499/1999-1 (words INTEA and INTESA were found to be confusinglysimilar b y CF I Dec. T-353/02.)It is a lso important to no te that in cer ta in cas es the combinat ion of two w ordswhich are descriptive per se may nevertheiess have a certain degree ofdist inct iven e ss , s ince the dis t inct ive cha racter ma y lie in the co mbinat ion o fthe words .175 612 000 (EN) EUROBAIT/ EURO BAITS (L0C )How e ver , it is o n ly in e xcep t ion a l cas e s , in w h ich a ll the compo ne nts w h icha re d evo l d o f d is t in c tive cha rac te r toge ther fo rm a s ign s how ing a de gree o fcre at ivity an d o r iginal ity, that a mark conta ining o nly de scr ipt ive te rms w il l bee i ig ib le for reg i s t ra t ion . Such an a sse ssme nt must ne cess ar iiy be condu c tedon a ca se -by-case ba sis (par. 27). ECJ, C-265100 - BIOMILD.When assessing and comparing the distinctiveness and dominance of thevarious components of signs, it is necessary to distinguish the relevantterritory, s ince, main ly due to l ing uist ic rea so ns, the p ercep t ion o f s igns ma ybe different.758/1999 co nfirmed EN MATRATZEN MATRATZEN Lo Cby B oA and EC J CONCORD24812000, Lo Cconfirmed by Bo A EN ACTIVE WEAR INTERACTIVEDec. R0443/2000-1 WEAR1457/1999, NoLoCconfirmed by Bo A EN MEGAKID MEGARIGDec. R019012000-1377/2000,confirmed by Bo A EN CALCITRANS CALCITUMS N o L o CDec. R0449 12000-1770 58 8 o f EN CALORA CALOR N o L o C31/07/2006Furthermore, it is ne cess ary to d is t ingu ish b etw ee nhe different goods andservices involved, as the finding of a descriptive meaning of a componentcou ld a f fect on ly part of the g oo ds. To th is e xten t the sa me cons ide rat ions arepe rtine nt a s in the de terminat ion o f the d is t inc t ivene ss o f the ea r lie r s ign a ssuch.3 . Visual, phonetic and conceptual comparisonThe Manual c oncerning Opposition, Part 2, C hapter 2C Page 7

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

8/33

Lik e//hoo d of con fusion - Sim ilarity of signs

3.1. General princip/esAs stated by the Court in "Puma/Sabef' (paragraph 23), the similarity of thesigns has to be appreciated globally, i.e. including a visual, aural andconceptual assessment.Therefore, it is never appropriate to assess the similarity of signs only in someof these aspects. The similarity between signs always has to be evaluatedwith respect to their visual, aural and conceptual aspects.However, this does not mean that a finding of likelihood of confusion is onlygiven in cases where similarity of the signs can be found in all the aspectsmentioned.On the contrary, the Court clarified that a mere aural simi/arity between trademarks may create a likelihood of confusion, depending on the furthercircumstances of the case (Lloyd, paragraph 28).The mere aura] similarity between marks has been found sufficient, accordingto the particular circumstances of the case, to establish likelihood of confusionwhen the goods or services involved are recommended or ordered orally.309/1999 D E WOOKI WALKI Lo C1949/2001 D E H Z Hazet L o C148/2000 EN COPAT QPAT LoC159312001 EN INCEL L LINCEL Lo C260312004 EN YOI JOY LoCAccording to CFI case-law, for clothing, usually the visual comparison is ofhigher importance than the phonetic comparison as the goods are bought "onsight" and usually be chosen only after a close look at their appearance.C FI, T-1 17/03 ,L Sport /NLL 0 C )Similar considerations apply, although in a less pronounced way, forpe r fum es .CFI T-355/02,IR (fig.) /ZIRHNo Loc), confirmed by ECJ Dec. C-206/04This should, however, not mean that the phonetic aspect can be disregarded..Also for clothes the phonetic factor may not be neglected as also these goodsmay be recommended or ordered orally.Example for a case concerning clothing where visual dissimilarities weregiven less weight:

The Manual conce rning Oppo sition, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 8

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

9/33

Lik e//hoo d of confusion - Simi/arity of signs

851/1999 confirmedby BoA and CFI (T- EN FIFTIES MISS FIFTIES LoC104/01)According to the Court, it is possible that a mere conceptual similarity,resulting from the fact that two marks use im ages with analogous semanticcontent, may give rise to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark hasa particularly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation itenjoys with the public (Sabel , paragraph 24).Likewise, a mere visual similarity between the signs may suffice, according tothe particular circumstances of the case, for a finding of likelihood ofconfusion.However, the finding of likelihood of confusion always depends on the specificcircumstances of each individual case. All the circumstances have to becarefully assessed and weighed. It is always necessary to consider allaspects of similarity together in order to determine the outcome. Additionally,it may be decisive that one aspect of similarity is of specific importance inrespect of the goods and services involved.Taking all these considerations into account, even a weak sim ilarity in allthree aspects (visual, phonetic and conceptual) may, when consideredtogether, lead to a find ing of likelihood of confusion.On the other hand, a strong difference between the signs in respect of onlyone of the different aspects may lead to a finding that confusion is not likely, inspite of the similarity found in respect of the other aspects.A finding that differences exclude LoC is only possible if the relevant public isable to perceive the visual or conceptual difference.

123312001 (EN )No LoC );CFI, T-0385/03 (EN)MILES (LoC)In order to be of importance, any difference must be sufficiently remarkable.

m T .1039/2000 (EN)ROW /the remarkable visual differences prevailover the similarity of the word part; No LoC).The meaning of the relevant signs has to be clearly understood by therelevant consumers.

BoA R-00481200-3 MARCO / MARCA, reversing Decision 1279/1999 becausethe importance of the conceptual difference was overestimated: GermanThe Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Cha pter 2C age 9

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

10/33

Lik e//hood of confusion - Sim /larity of signs

consumers w ou ld not unders tand "marca" a s mea n ing "Marke" .A conceptual difference can only be given weight if it exists in all thege ograp hica l areas tha t are re levant wh en compa r ing the s igns.61111 999 (EN) VERIT / VERI (L0C);128011999 (EN) MANFIELD / PENFIELD (No L0C), confirmed by BoA120/2000-1.If a significant part of the relevant public is not able to understand themea ning of the sign, the concep tua l differences w ill no t inf lue nce the res ult.A conceptual difference is of little weight in cases where the signs arephonetically identical or highly similar as in that situation the difference inconcept will not even be perceptible when the signs are ommunicatedorally. In this case the conceptual differenc e c an underline any v isua ldifferences but not attenuate the phonetic similarity and can in no case assuch exc lude LoC .64/19 98 (ES) SSI STAR SERVICE S INTERNATIONAL / SS] USA (LoC );309 119 99 (DE) W OOKI / W ALKI (LoC), confirmed b y BoA, R 4291 199 9-13.2.isual comparison: practical criteriaThe visual comp arison is obviou sly de cis ive as reg ards f igurat ive signs .Also for wo rd marks, the v isua l compar ison p lays an important ro le .I n the cas e o f w o rd marks , the w o rd as such is p ro tec ted and no t it s w r it tenform. Therefore, it is i rre leva nt w hethe r wo rd marks are rep rese nted in sma llor capital lette rs. The sa me a pp lies to d ifferen t lette r-types, at leas t ins ofar asthey are common in the re levan t market .311 199 9 (DE) La nda na / LANDAMANN (L0C );62 1199 8 (EN) Ca sh Gu ard / CASHGUARD (LoC ).For wo rd marks , the v isua l compar ison is ba sed on an a na lys is o f the numberand sequence of the letters, the number of words and the structure of thesigns. Further particularities may be of relevance, such as the existence ofspe c ia l le t te rs o r accen ts tha t may be p erce ived a s a n ind icat ion o f a sp ec if iclang ua ge . For wo rd marks, the v isua l compa r iso n coinc ide s w ith the pho net iccompar ison un le ss i n the re levan t l angua ge the w o rd is no t p rono unced a s i tis w ritten.For example, for w ord ma rks, a d ifferent a sse ssme nt w ould a pply on ly if e ithertwo different words are pronounced identically (example in French: dans /de nt; in En gl ish: nau ghty / nasty Thes e are n ot no t prono unced ide nt ica lly !) orif tw o s imilar w ords are p rono unced di fferen t ly (examp le in Eng lish: thoug h /t h r o u g h ) .For figurative marks consisting of words (words written in a particularThe Manual conce rning Opposi t ion, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 10

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

11/33

Lik elihood of confusion - Similarity of signs

distinctive typeface), the overall impression of the image - and thus anysimilar it ies in the letters th ems elves , e.g. tw o s imilar lette rs that can ea si ly beconfused - is a lso of re leva nce.As regards figurative marks in colour, the use of the same colour or colourpattern may increase a visual similarity of the figurative or word elementsthemse lves. The e xact e f fect of co lours o r colour patterns ha s to be a ss es se dind iv idua lly in e ach cas e , s ince th is de pe nds very much on the impa ct o f theco lour on the o vera l l impress ion o f the s igns invo lved.

4111998 (EN)*'/"" (fig.) (No LoC);1019/1 999 (ES )PS/TPS CALL SCIENCES(LoC);11591 1999 (EN ) EUROPA ! TLoC);Mere co inc ide nce o f the s ame co lou r , if the f igu ra t ive o r wo rd e leme nts a renot s imilar, in pr inc iple w il l no t e nou gh to lea d to a relevant s imilar ity.In the comparison between three-dimensional signs and two-dimensionalsigns the same basic principles are to be apptied. Of course the particularfea ture s o f the three -d imens ion a l s ign ma y have a sp ec ia l in f lue nce us ua llyon the visual impact of the s ign. How eve r, th is must b e con s idered in respe ctof the ove ra ll impress ion a s us ua l .

-256712000 (EN) /no L oC );3.3. Phonetic comparison: practical criteriaWhen the opposition is based on earlier signs which enjoy protection indifferent Me mbe r States , the d ifferen t pronu nciat ions o f the s igns in a l l off ic ia llanguages of those Member States are to be taken into account. Localaccents are no t taken into a ccoun t .In pr inc ip le, wh en w ord-on ly s igns a re invo lved, the aura l impress ion w ill be o fgrea ter re levance than the v isua l impress ion.11 9711 999 ( EN ) K MPGEN / CA MPERS (L oC );12801 199 9 (EN) MANFIELD / PENFIEL D (No L0 C ) ;W hen a s ign con ta in s f o re i gn w ords , it shou l d be a s sume d t ha t t he r e levan tpub l ic is e ithe r unfamiliar w ith that foreign lang ua ge , or eve n i f i t und ersta nd sthe meaning in that foreign language, will still tend to pronounce it inaccorda nce w ith the ph one t ic ru les of thei r nat ive langua ge .128011999 (EN) MANFIELD / PENFIELD (No LoC); confirmed by BoA Dec.The Ma nual c once rning Oppos ition, P art 2, C hapter 2C Page 11

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

12/33

Lik e//hoo d of confusion - Simila rity of signs

R012012000-114 6/20 00 (EN) BRIDGE / OXBRIDGE (L0C); conf irmed by BoA R0310/2000-420 321 20 00 (EN) OLLY CAN / HOOLIGAN (B0A a nd C FI, T-57/03: No LoC) .This may not be, however, always the case. In certain Member States asignifican t pa rt of the p ubl ic at large is familiar w ith a g iven lan gu ag e o r somewords of it. The same may happen when a specialized public is at stake(example: most IT profess iona ls in Europe w ill prono unce the w ord "de lete" asin English). In such cases, the Office should take into account thepronun c ia t ion o f a fo re ign w ord unde r the p hon et i c ru les o f the l angu ag e inques t ion . W he re a s ign ificant pa r t o f the re levan t pub l ic prono unces the fo re ign w ordcorrect ly, but a no ther s ignif icant pa rt of the re levant p ubl ic app lies the rules ofthe ir mother tongue , both w ays o f pronun ciat ion h ave to be ta ken into accountw hen ass es s ing the ph one t ic s imilar ity o f the s igns.309 /19 99 (DE) WOO KI / W ALKIE (LoC).Figurativo olomonts of marks cannot bo pronouncod aro not cubjcct fe c iphonct ic assos smont . Tho "mean ing" o f w hat i f igu rat ivo elomon t rcproso nts,has to bc a sse sso d un der the not ion o f conccptual s imilar ity .Exa mplo: Thcrc ic no ph on otic cimilar ity bctw ccn c i s tar emb lem and the w ord"QTAD" 2 f'.I

Pure ly figurat ive e lements (that is , not conta in ing an y w ord e leme nt) are notsubject to a p hone t ic asse ssmen t. The "mean ing" o f w hat a f igurat ive e lementrepresents, has to be assessed under the notion of conceptual similarity.Example: There is no pho net ic s imilar ity betw ee n a s tar emblem and the w ord"STAR".W hile w ords, le t ters an d numbe rs must be cons idered pho ne t ica lly , there a resymbols an d abb reviat ions that may ra ise so me doub ts:As an example the logogram '&' (ampersand) will generally be read andpronounced and therefore should be included in the phonetic comparison.The same goes for the typographic character , which in principle w ill beprono unced . Ob vious ly , the p ronunciat ion o f a g iven s ymbol may be d i fferentw hen d i fferent lang uag es are to be cons idered.

Example: UT) Nom eIn the cas e a bove it canno t be d en ied that a s igni ficant pa rt o f the p ub l ic - inpa rticu lar Eng lish s pe ake rs - wo uld rea d the 'at symbol ' an d thus refer to thetrad e ma rk in sp ee ch as "a t home" . Th is p oss ib i lity shou ld therefore be taken

1 Amended on 1102120102 Amended on 110212010

The Manual con cerning Opposi t ion, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 12

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

13/33

Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs

into con s iderat ion , toge ther w ith othe r poss ib i lit ies such a s 'a ho me' or s imply'home'. Naturally, in other languages the symbol may be readable in adi fferent w ay ( for example 'a r rob a ' in Spa nish an d Po rtugu es e).The plus (+) an d minus (-) symbo ls may, dep en ding of the c ir cums tances ,also be pronounced. The minus symbol may be pronounced when used incombination with number such as '4, but the same symbol will not beprono unced if used as a h yphe n (as in 'G-Star ') .In Opp os it ion B 668 485 (dec is ion of 22112/2005) the fo l low ing s igns w ere tobe compared:

AurP ius Internat iona l1

The O pp os it ion Divis ion con side red th at in Engl ish th e s ymbo l '+' fea tured inthe contested CTMA would be pronounced as 'plus' (although it was foundtha t the re w as no like lihoo d o f con fu s ion ) . The Second Boa rd o f Appe a l t ookthe sa me ap proach (dec is ion of 7 June 2007 in Case R310120 06-2).In the Ca se R 958/2005-1 the Boa rds found tha t in German the t rade ma rkbellow would be pronounced either as 'zeroerhaplus', 'zeror' or simply as'zero':

r r oThe Court of First Instance found that this assessment was correct(Judg eme nt of 16/0912009 in Ca se T-400/06, pa ragraph 5 6).Cu rren cy symbo ls ( , $, etc) const i tute a no ther type of symbol wh ich may beprono unced w he n the mark is referred to in sp ee ch. An (invente d) example: inthe United Kingdom the sign 20' would be pronounced as " 20 pounds " .Thus, the signs ' 20 ' , ' 20 pounds' and 'twenty pounds' are phoneticallyident ica l.How eve r , some t imes s ymbo l s may be f ea tu red in a manne r wh i ch makes i tun rea lis t ic t o a ss ume tha t the y w ou ld b e read a nd p ronounced . Th is may b ethe case, for example, when in a figurative mark a symbol is featuredrepea ted ly to c rea te a pa t tern.In o the r w o rds , w he the r o r no t a g iven symbo l is p ronoun ceab l e dep end s o fthe type o f symbol in qu es t ion, how the symbo l is featu red, and the ma nne r inw hich i t is combined w ith othe r e leme nts of the s ign.

3 Amended on 110212010

The Manual con cerning Oppo sition, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 13

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

14/33

Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs

3.4. Conceptual comparison: practical criteriaSigns are con ceptu al ly ide ntical or similar w he n the tw o signs a re pe rceivedas h aving the sa me or a similar semantic conten t.This is the case w here(a ) two w ords refer to the sa me se mantic term or variations of it;(b ) two w ords have the sa me mean ing but in another langua ge;(c) two different w ords refer to items that fall under the s ame catego ry andhave the s ame characterist ics and convey the sa me e motional connotations;(d ) two figurative elements would be phonetically referred to under thesame te rm;(e ) there is word vs a figurative element which would be phoneticallyreferred to und er the same te rm.(f) there is a co lour pe r se vs. the ve rbal description of the colour.This is not the case w here(g ) there are tw o w ords for wh ich a ge neric term covering bo th of them exist;(h ) the two signs fall under the same general category or sub-category ofs i g n s .(1) thoro oro t'io difforont figurativo roprosontations of tho samo gonoralphor.omcnon;4C onceptual similarity may come into play( 4 i ) for the two s igns as a w hole;(kj) in co mparing elemen ts o f compos ite (complex) signs).Conceptual similarity increases the degree of overall similarity and thusincrea ses Lo C.In contrast, a di fference in conce pt de crea se s the de gree of o veral l similarityand thus decreases LoC ,(Ik) w here bo th signs have a d if ferent s emantic content (as se t out ab ove), or(il) to a much lesser degree, if one sign has a semantic meaning and theother none,( m) excep t wh ere the signs remain phone tically similar to a high deg ree o riden tical, in wh ich cas e a ny conceptual difference p erce ived visua lly is o f littleor no importance.Finally,(on) where none of the signs conveys a semantic meaning, conceptualsimilarity is o f ze ro relevan ce.As regards these individual sub-categories:( a ) Two w ords refer to the same se mantic term or variations of itThis is the case w here there a re synonyms, ie w here tw o w ords exist for the

Amended on 191 0912009The Manual conce rning Oppo sition, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 14

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

15/33

Lik el ihoo d of con fusion - Similari ty of signs

same semantic mean ing.Invented examples : Bag gagel Luggage; Bicycie / Bike; Male horse / Stallion.This is also the case where the two terms are just variations of the sameword.

266612001 , (L0Cconfirmedy CFI D E LINDENHOF LINDERHOF deniedT-296-02 fortherreasons)348/1999confirmed by BoA EN LINDENER LINDEBOOM LoC38011999-2

(Both terms refer, in different ways, to a species of trees.)CFI, T-221 04es t / WESTLIFELoC)(Both trade marks evoke the idea of the West, western goods or as pertainingto a western lifes tyle in the case of Wes tlife, they both have s imila rconnotations.)CFI, T-8510 2ASTILLO! EL CASTILLO (fig.)(The relevant public would be likely to think that the goods to which the wordmark CASTILLO relates may come from the undertaking which owns theearlier figurative mark EL CASTILLO.).Other examples:

LoC;oA,2432/2001 ES BILBAO BLUE BILBAO CTM partiallyacceptedThis comprises cases where the conceptual similarity cons ists in anantagonism:182/2000EN LIMMITNO LIMITSLoC(b )wo words or terms have the same meaning but in another language:Conceptual similarity also exists between word marks in different languages .It is necessary that the perception of a common meaning of the signs isshared by a s ignificant part of the relevant public in the territory where theearlier mark is protected and, when the earlier mark is a CTM, in the samepart of the EC, le in the same Member State. This evaluation has to be carriedout as regards (each of) the relevant area(s).In rare cases this tips the balance to LoC, namely where the terms coincide inone element anyway or are already presenting visual or phonetic similaritiesanyway.The Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 15

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

16/33

Lik elihood of confusion - Sim ilarity of signs

13111999 EN CINCOOCEANOS 5 OCEANS LoC47611999 EN NUTRIFORM NUTRAFERM LoC48211999 EN CHAIN MASTER MASTER Cadena LoC1121/1999 EN DASOLDENEB LATT GOLDEN PAGES LoC311112000 EN REDBARON BARON ROJO LoC296212001 EN OPERATIONSOURIRE OPERATIONSMILE LoCTwo different language versions of a term are conceptually equivalent,provided that both meanings are understood by the same relevant public. Inpractice, these cases are limited to situations where the earlier mark isprotected in a part of the Community which has two official languages, orwhere a word in a foreign language has almost become part of the otherlanguage. In most cases there will be no Loc. The mere fact that one term is atranslation of the other term is not sufficient. On the one hand, the perfectunderstanding of the meaning of the sign which is in the native language ofthe relevant public, and, therefore, its better recollection will enable therelevant public to perfectly recollect the differences of the signs. On the otherhand, the meaning of the word in the foreign language will not that easily beunderstood or remembered or brought into connection with the other sign.CFI T-33/03, HAl/SHARK (No LoC)

(It cannot be established that in Germany, the English word "shark" is widelyused instead of the German term "Hai".)(c ) Two different words refer to items that fall under the same categoryand have the same characteristics and convey the same emotionalconnotations;This is the case for 2 aspects of weil-defined semantic meanings:113/1998 (EN) SUNRISE / SUNSET (L0C);Or where the same emotional or sublim inal con notation is conveyed:49511999 (EN) SECRET PLEASURES / PRIVATE PLEASURES (LoC),confirmed by BoA 616/1999-1;When signs are in a foreign Ian guage , a significant part of the relevant publicmay only have a limited command of the relevant foreign language andtherefore might not be able to distinguish the subtle differences between themeaning of two signs. Already the perception of their meaning by the publicmay be then to some extent blurred. This further influences their recollectionwhich will be less clear and less exact than the recollection of meaningsoriginally perceived in the native language.(d ) Two figurative elements would be phonetically referred to under theThe Ma nual concerning Oppo sition, Pa rt 2, Chap ter 2C Page 16

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

17/33

Lik elihoo d of con fusion - Similarity of signs

same te rm:As reg ards figura t ive s igns , the Cour t Puma/Sabel, paragraphs 24-26) hassta ted th at " it is no t impos sible tha t the conceptua l s imila rity res uit ing from thefa c t tha t tw o ma rks us e image s w ith ana logous s em ant ic conten t ma y g iverise to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a particularlydist inct ive character, e i ther pe r se or be cause of the rep utat ion it e njoys w iththe p ublic. How e ver, w here the e a riie r mark is not e sp ecial ly we il known to thepub lic and consists o f an image w ith l it t le ima gina t ive conte nt, the me re facttha t the tw o ma rks a re conce ptua lly s imila r is no t suffic ie nt to g ive r ise to alikeiihood of confusion.The me re as soc iat ion which the pub lic might make be twe en tw o trade ma rksas a result of their anaiogous semantic content is not in itseif a sufficientground for concluding that there is a likelihood of confusion." The merecommon ass oc ia t ion be twe en tw o image s in sema nt ic te rms is the re fore notenough. The signs must, in the first place, represent visual (graphical)s imila r ity. This m ea ns tha t som e diffe rences in the grap hic repres en tat ion ofcommon elements and symbols will usualiy (and absent reputation of thee a rlie r ma rk) su ffice to e xciude iikel ihood of confusion, even if the unde rlyingconcept is not altere d.4111998 ES No LoC641/1999 EN 7' Q NoLoC696/1999 DE No LoC136811999 EN - No LoC

165/2000 EN r NoLoC144712000 DE No LoC

LoC will be found if the conceptual similarity of the graphic elements justreinforces the e xisting visua l similarity,

14611 99 9 (EN) (L0C);1499 12000 (EN) / (L0C).

12021 2000 (EN) / 2_ (L0C)

The Manua l conc erning Oppos ition, P art 2, C hapter 2C Page 17

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

18/33

Lik e//hood o f con fusion - Similarity of signs

144912000 (EN) a nd _/(/ (L0C).all the more so if the earlier sign has an enhanced distinctiveness throughu s e .

3 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 ( E N ) / ("deer's head" for classes 32-33. LoC,con firmed by BoA Dec . R021 3120 01-3, pend ing be fore C FI)(e ) There is word vs a figurative e lement which would be phoneticallyre fe rred to und e r the sa me te rm.I n p r in c ip le , con cep tua l s imila r it y a lso ex is t s b e tw ee n a w ord a nd a n images ho w i n g w ha t t h e w o rd r e p r e s e n t s ( in v e n t e d e x a m p le : W o rd m a rk " TIG E R"a ga inst f igu rative ma rk de picting a t ige r).Example, where conceptual similarity was found between the word"Macarena" which refers to a weil known apparition of the Virgin Mary inSeville and a composite mark which inciudes the word Macarena and ap ic tu re sh ow ing that s cene ry:

2 4 8 1 2 0 0 2 9z m MACARENA LoC

(f ) The re is a co lour pe r se vs. the verba l de scr ipt ion o f the co iou r .There is conceptual simiiarity between a word mark "orange" and a markc la im ing the co l ou r o ran ge pe r s e , be cau se the con sume r w ill a lw a ys o ra llyexclus ive ly re fe r to the co lour pe r se t ra de mark as the "ora ng e" t r ad e ma rk.Also , in h i s memo ry the reco llec t ion o f a co lou r sha de w ill a lw a ys b e c los e lyas soc ia te d w i th the ve rba l de sc rip t ion "oran ge" .(g ) Th e re a re t w o w o rd s fo r w h ich a g e n e r ic te r m co ve rin g b o t h o f t he mexist, and(h ) the two s igns fa ll und e r the s a me ge ne ra l c a tego ry o r sub-ca tego ry o fs igns .The me re f a c t t ha t t he two w ord s o r t e rms can be g roupe d un de r a c ommongeneric term, or beiong to the same type of mark, is not at all a case ofcon ceptu a l s imila r ity.lnven ted e xamples : " Ja gua r" vs "E lep ha nt" , the f ac t tha t both a re a n imals isir re levan t. "TDI" vs. "LNF", the fact tha t bo th a re three - le tte r abb rev ia t ion s isirrelevant.

The fact that both word marks are personal names neither constitutesThe Ma nual co nce rning Opposition, Pa rt 2, C hapter 2C Page 18

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

19/33

Lik e//hood of con fusion - Sim ilarity of signs

conce ptu al similarity, no r can it de tract from Lo C. (Rath e r, the criteria un de r5.3 for "names " ap ply, see the exa mples there).See also:5511998 IT UNCLE WILLIAM UNCLE BEN'S No LoC

(i) There are two different figurative representations of the same generalphenomenonFigurative marks are protected the way they are actually depicted, not asregards the ge neral category of phenomena they are ab out.ECJ "Puma/Sabel" must not be interpreted as meaning that two figurativesigns are protected against a common association of representing e.g. aparticular type or species of animal unless there are commonalities in thefigu rative rep rese ntation itseif, an d this app lies irres pe ctive o f repu tation.There is no protection against association unless there is also LoC, and noprotection of a motto o r concept a s s uch (no Motivschutz).(j) Con ceptual similarity may come inta play for the tw o s igns as a w holeUsually, when the conceptual similarity refers to the two signs as a whole,there a re visual and p ho ne tic diss imilarity, an d althou gh it is no t exclude d tha tthe con ceptua l similarity alone ca n lead to L oC , this w ill rarely be the cas e.(se e, ag ain, the case HAl/SHARK,T -33103)(k) Conceptual similarity may come inta play in comparing elements ofcompos ite (complex) sign sMuch more weight is to be given to conceptual similarities of elements ofcompos ite (complex) signs w hich a re visually different, if the othe r elements ofthe signs are visually similar / ide ntical.48211999 EN CHAIN MASTER MASTER Cadena LoC296212001 EN OPERATIONSOURIRE OPERATIONSMILE LoC

In conceptually comparing a one word mark with a composite mark, theanalys is must be made tow ards the compos ite mark as a w ho le a nd not w ithrespe ct to the coincid ing w ord element, w hich w ould be ide ntical. The resultw ill freq ue ntly be on e of conceptua l difference.286/1999 EN MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN BIKER No LoC87311999 ALTA ALTA FIDELIDAD No LoC870 /2000 PLANET *IL No LoC

The Manual con cerning Oppo sition, Part 2, Chapter 2C age 19

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

20/33

Lik elihoo d of con fusion - Similarity of signs

27612001PLANETIKADO PLANETo LoCHowever, if the common element is weak (of little inherent distinctiveness, oreven plainly descriptive), the conceptual similarity of that common element isof no weight and can not compensate the low degree of distinctiveness of theearlier mark.1424/1999 EN VIFIT -IVITA No LoC178 4 12001 EN ?. TEQUILA No LoC

( inc iuding_F[QIJILA)

66/1999 EN DINOKIDS DINO No LoC104311999 EN NEOLUX NEOLITE No LoC115911999 E N EUROPA/T Europa No LoC113912000 E N SILBERQUELLE SILVERPRINGCLEAR No LoC937/2001 E N VITAL PHYTO-VITAL No LoC( 1 )difference in concept decreases the degree of overall s imilarity andthus incrcascs decreases LoC, where both signs have a different semanticcontent5

It is a s trong, although never automatically decisive, factor agains t LoC if bothmarks, although representing some visual s imilarities, have a clearlyunderstandable conceptual difference in the sense that each word refers to adifferent concept. This is even s tronger factor if one of the m eanings isdescriptive or allusive for the goods.689/1999, ENconfirmedyBoAec. G lis a No LoCR0666/1999- 31443/1999 E N METRO MAESTRO No LoCCFI T-29 2/01 EN BASS PASH No Loc25612000 EN GOLDMARK GOLD BLOCK No LoC117511999 EN NEPAL HEPAL NoLoC131611999 EN ODOL IDOLE No LoCLoC may still be found to the extent that the conceptual difference is notperceived aurally so that it cannot overcome the aural similarity:CFI T-99 /01DE i MixeryMYSTERYoC

Am ended o n 28 10112010The Manua l conc erning Oppos ition, P art 2, C hapter 2C Page 20

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

21/33

Lik e//hood of con fusion - Sim ilarity of signs

(m) To a much les ser de gree, if one s ign ha s a se mantic mea ning a nd theother none .Much less is the w eight of concep tual dissimilarity if only one of the marks ha sa meaning. This may, in some instances where the other mark is clearlyrecognizable, constitute a factor against LoC - in the sense that it helpsdistinguishing the tw o marks - but it must no t be forgotten that the fact that theyounge r mark does n ot rep resen t the sa me concep t as the ea rlier mark w ouldjust be the conseq uen ce of the fact that the youn ger mark is no t iden tical.It is quite problematic that some CFI decisions have used a conceptualmeaning prese nt only for one o f the tw o marks as a s hortcut for denying LoC .CFI, T-292101, "BASS/PASH", p ar. 54,CFI T- 35/03, "Carpo/Harpo Z", par. 27,W e s hou ld refrain from such rea so ning in our de cisions. A qua si-auto matismthat lack of realising the same concept as the earlier mark excludes LoCw ould be incorrect.(n ) Except w he re the signs remain pho ne tically similar to a high deg ree o ridentical, in w hich cas e an y concep tua l differen ce p erceived visua lly is of l ittleor no importance.Where the words are pronounced identically or in a s imilar way, anyconceptual difference w ill not be pe rceived and can not attenu ate the p hone ticsimilarities . In this cas e an y conce ptua l differen ce p erceived visually is o f littleor no importance. So, LoC would still be found to the extent that theconcep tual difference is not p erceived a urally.C FI i DE i Mixery JMYSTERY jLoC(Co ntrary to CFI, Hooligan / 01 11 Gan).(o ) Where none of the signs conveys a semantic meaning, conceptualsimilarity is o f ze ro releva nce.If non e o f the marks ha s a se mantic mea ning (i.e. if the tw o w ord marks areinvented words), the decision should either state that a conceptualcomparison cannot be made, or refrain from any discussion of conceptualsimilarity.In those cases there is neither conceptual similarity nor a conceptua ldifferen ce. Tha t is, the na tion o f conce ptu al similarity ha s z ero impact on th ecase .4 . Par ticular is sues as regards different kinds of signsThe following criteria have been developed and applied in a multitude ofcase s, in pa rticu lar in the comp ar iso n of w ord s igns. How eve r, it sho uld bestress ed tha t these criteria a re neither exhau stive no r app licable in al l case s.The Manual con cerning Oppo sition, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 21

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

22/33

L ike //hoo d of con fusion - Sim i/arity of signs

Depending on the special circumstances of each individual case, differentcriter ia may be pe rtine nt.4.1. Number of letters and structureThe overall visual impression produced by verbal or predominantly verbals igns de pen ds to a g rea t ex tent on the numb er o f le t te r s and the s t ructure o fthe words. However, the average consumer normally perceives a sign as aw ho le an d do es no t p ro cee d to a na ly se i t s va r ious de ta ils . The re fo re , sma lldifferences in the (number of) letters are often not sufficient to exclude afinding of visual similarity, particularly when the signs have a commonstructu re.29111999 EN SUVIMAX SULINAX LoC444/1999conf irmed by BoA EN Sedonium PREDONIUM LoCDecis ionR0586/1999-2/CFI_(settled)

469/1999conf irmed by BoA EN CODEROL CODIDOL Lo CR 6 2 2 1 1 9 9 9 - 3476/1999 EN NUTRIFORM NUTRAFERM Lo C85211999 EN EVERGREEN EVERDEEN LoC204412000 EN RESVIN RESVERIN LoC72712001 EN GERALDINO GHERARDINI LoC2694/2001,conf irmed by BoA EN FORTIS FORIS LoC ,Dec. R 004 9 /2002 -44.2. Length of signsThe Ieng th o f the s igns may in flue nce the e f fe c t o f d iffe ren ces be twe en thes igns . The sh orter a s ign, the m ore e as i ly the p ubl ic is a b le to pe rce ive a ll itss ing le e leme nts. Thus, sma ll d if feren ces may freque nt ly lea d in sho r t words toa different overall impression. In contrast, the public is less aware ofd iffe rences be tw ee n long s igns .In ma ny re levan t markets it is a comm on p ract ice to use sho r t ma rks w hichare a bbre v ia t ions o f the n ame o f the comp an y o r re fe r to the re levan t goodsor serv ices. In these case s the pub l ic is a wa re o f th is pract ice a nd is ge ne rallyused to distinguishing between many abbreviations and w ill not be eas ilyconfused .1316/1999 EN ODOL IDOLE No LoC65112001 EN YSL SL No LoC838/2001 EN No LoC1038/2001,The Ma nual co nce rning Oppos ition, Part 2, C hapter 2C Page 22

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

23/33

Like l ihood o f confusion - Sim i lari ty of s igns

confirmed b y BoA EN TOM DOM No LoCDecisionR0611/2001 -1There is the tendency to deny similarity between "one-letter-signs / one-numeral-s igns " w hich a re de picted in a different and imaginative style. In fact,a s ingle letter per se is ge neral ly devoid of dist inct ive cha racter and do es not,in pr inc ip le, serve in trad e to d is t ingu ish the go ods of one u nde rtaking f romthos e of othe r unde rtaking s. Therefore, for "one -lette r / nume ral marks", theprotection is sought for the specific manner in which the letters arerepresented graphically and not for the single letter by itseif. For this verysame reason, its aural and its conceptual impression will necessarily beide ntical but irrelevan t to the ove rall impress ion of the sign.This implies that, for instance, if the marks in conflict consist of differentgrap hic represe ntat ions of the s ame letter, there w il l normally be no Lo C.1011999 EN M) No LoC12211 9 9 9 EN H No LoC394 / 1999 EN No LoC163112000 FR NoLoC468/2001 EN 1 No LoC185012001 EN No LoC

Ne vertheles s, the se s igns accompa nied by similar f igu rat ive elements ca n besimilar:

570 /200 0 ( EN) ( 1 ? / (LoC); confirmed by BoA Dec. R0 5 68 12 00 01087120 01 (EN) / 40L0C ), confirmed by CFI T-1 1 5 /02It is n eces sa ry to clar i fy that a verba l repres enta t ion o f 'one -lette r / one digits igns" is not to be cons idered equ iva lent to the s ign a nd tha t, therefore, theaforementioned arguments are not directly applicable to such cases. Forexample , a fancy rep res enta t ion o f number one is not the sa me s ign as thew ord trade mark "ONE".As rega rds trade marks bui lt as "tw o letter / tw o digit s igns", it sho uld be no tedthat s imilar ity has be en de nied w hen they are compared to t rade marks w ithdifferent or more letters, also on the grounds of their reduced ntrinsicdistinctiveness.59 6/19 99 (EN) PC / BC (No L0C);The Manual co ncerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 23

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

24/33

Lik e//hood of con fusion - Sim ilarity of signs

33711 999 (EN) NTS / NT (No LoC );62311 999 (ES) EO / EO S (No Lo C);12441 1999 (EN) ATS lat (No LoC);Fina lly , spe c ia l con s iderat ions such a s the represe ntat ion o f tho se let ters in ape culiar form can lea d to l ikel iho od of confusion:

r :649/2000 (EN) / (L0C).To continue with the analysis of the signs that are considered weaklydist inct ive be caus e o f the ir red uced n umbe r of letters or f igu res, a furthe r steptow ards the increa se o f d ist inct ivene ss w ou ld be that of " three- let ter / three-nume ra l- s igns" . In such case s , the re see ms to be a ten de ncy to rega rd thesigns as similar w he re the on ly difference l ies in one pho ne ticafly similar letter.The fo l low ing w ere found s imilar:C FJ T-3881 00 (EN) ILC / ILS(Two of the three letters are identical and in the same sequence, thedi fference in a s ingle let ter do es no t const i tute a s ignif icant v isual d i fference.Pa r. 66)153 611 999 (EN) SYM / SIM ((LoC ).In contrast, the follow ing w ere fou nd d issimilar:168 /1999 (EN) jbs / TBS (No Lo C);909 /2001 (EN) BRU / BLU (No L0C );125/200 1 (EN) TPS / PTS (No Lo C).How ever, in th is context it shou ld a lso be note d that there is no se t approa ch.Each case has to be judged on its ow n mer its , i.e . by tak ing into a ccoun t a l l itssp ecific circums tan ces .4.3.eginning of signsIn p redo minan t ly verba l t rad e marks , the fir s t par t is ge ne ra lly the on e thatpr imar ily catches the con sume r 's a t tent ion a nd the refore w ill be remembe redmore clearly than the rest of the sign. This means that, in such cases, thebe ginning o f a s ign ha s a s ignif icant inf luen ce on the g ene ra l impress ion g ivenby the ma rk and ma y often be capa ble of exclud ing similar ity.Neverthe less, it has to be bo rne in mind tha t the concept eginning of the signis undetermined, as there is no particular indication of what forms thebeg inning, w hat is the en d or eve n, if there is or not amiddie part of the s ign.Again, this perception mostly depends on the circumstances of the case( Ien gth o f the s ign, sy llab ic d is t r ibu t ion , use o f type face , e tc) an d d oe s n otdepend on a set rule. It could even be that a sign is perceived as having asho rt be ginning a nd en d ing a nd a p roport iona lly much b iggermiddie or centralThe Manual con cerning Opp osition, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 24

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

25/33

Likel ihood of confusion - Sim i lari ty of s igns

part. Consequently, depending on the circumstances, the rule of therelevance of the beginning of the sign could have less weight to the benefit ofa more relevant central part .560/1999 EN ELTON HILTON N o L oC715/1999confirmed by BoA E NDec. 73111999-2 VOBIS COPIS N o L oC149012000 EN SIN OIL EMOIL N o L o C2437/2000 EN PLOVER OLOVER N o L oCCFI T-224/01 E N NU-TRIDE TUFFTRIDE N o L o CCFI T-21110 3 EN NABER (fig.) FABER (fig.) N o L oCCFI T-33610 3 E N MOBILIX OBELIX N o L o CHowever, the exact effect of differences at the beginnings of signs alwaysdepends on the specific circumstances. An overall impression of similaritymay be given, nevertheless, in cases where the difference at the beginning ofthe signs is visually, phonetically or conceptually not clearly perceptible, orwhere other features of the signs play an important role, such as theirstructure or their sequence of syllables .65/1998 DE BONAX SONAX LaO90/1998 E N ZADOVIR RADOVIR LoC592/1999 E N XENOVA RENOVA No LoC239612001 DE ASPIRIN BESPIRIN LoC167012001 E N NORVIR NOVIRIO N o L o CIn contrast, as it is usually the beginning of a sign which catches consumersattention, where signs only differ in their endings, this difference is ofteninsufficient to exclude s im ilarity.61111999 E S VERIT VERI LoC685/1999 FR QUINTON QUINTONINE LaO158711999 EN SHAPER SHAPERITE LoC164/2000 E N Lubr igel lubrigyn LoC259112000 E N SATINANCE SATINESSE LoC4.4.equence of sy//ab /es, rhythm and intonationThe overall phonetic impression produced by a sign is particularly influencedby the number and sequence of its syllables. The common rhythm andintonation of signs plays an important role in the phonetic perception of signs.The Collins English Dictionary defines "rhythm" as "the arrangement of wordsinto a more or less regular sequence of stressed and unstressed or long andshort syllables". "Intonation" is defined as "the sound pattern of phrases andsentences produced by pitch variation in the voice".Therefore, the key elements for determining the overall phonetic impression oftrade marks are the syllables and their particular sequence. The assessmentThe Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 25

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

26/33

Likel ihoo d of confusion - Sim i lari ty of s igns

of common syllables is particularly important in the phonetic comparison, as asim ilar overall phonetic impression will mos tly be determined by the sharedsyllables and their equal or similar combination.3511998 FR SIENA LA SIRENA No LoC3111999 D E LANDANA LANDAMANN LoC3511999 EN PHOTONICA PHOTOKINA LoCCFIT-186/02 EN DIESEL DIESELIT LoCCFI T-273102 EN CALPICO CALYPSO No LoCCFIT-154/03 EN ALREX ARTEX LoCIt should also be noted that what can cons titute a common part of theopposing s igns from a visual analysis can, nevertheless, produce a phoneticimpress ion that is not so s imilar or even different. This depends on the waysyllables are constructed (and, therefore, pronounced) according to the rulesof the relevant language.Dec. 47312000 (EN) ACTOS / ENTACTOS, (Visually there was a clearcoincidence: the last part of the CTMA reproduced the earlier s ign: -ACTOS.Nevertheless, the earlier trade mark was pronounced as laki-Itosi, whereasthe CTMA was NOT lenti-laki-Itosi but len 1 - Itakl - Itosi; (No LoC).Furthermore, in som e cases , consumers could be aware that the oppos ingtrade marks are formed of the same syllables in a different order, so that ifone of the words were rearranged it would be the same as the other. A clearexample of this is where marks are composed of two transpos ed syllables,e.g. HOTPOT / POTHOT.Nevertheless, the consideration of such a transformation exclusively dependson the perception consumers will have of the signs. Only in cases where it willbe evident to consumers that the application s ign is an inversion of thesyllables of the earlier trade mark (or vice versa), can the link be taken intoconsideration.In particular, when the signs are perceived as formed by two known elements,an inversion of these elements would be clearly noticeable. 185212002 (EN)SAT-COM / COM S.A.T (L0C).On the other hand, if the perception the relevant consumers have of the signsis that they are completely fancy terms, a syllable inversion will not benocitiable and, therefore, will not contribute to a conclus ion of s imilarity.5 .Composite" signs -signs that are partly or wholly inciuded inthe other signIn these cases, an element or the whole of a sign is totally or partially includedin the other sign.5.1. Signs containing figurative and word components

The Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Cha pter 2C age 26

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

27/33

Lik e//hood of con fusion - Simi/arity of signs

W he n s igns cons ist o f both w ord an d f igurat ive compon ents , the pr inc ip le hasbee n es tab lishe d that the w ord compon ent o f the s ign usua lly has a s t rongerimpact on the consume r tha n the figurat ive compon en t . Th is i s becau se thepub lic doe s no t tend to a na lyse s igns an d w ill mos t rea di ly refer to a s ign byi ts verbal component.It fo l iow s f rom th i s tha t a s imilar ity o f s igns is p roba b le in cas es w he re thesigns contain an identical or very similar word component, bu t d i fferentf igura t ive compo ne nts . The sa me p r inc ip le ap p l ies to s igns w hich cons is t o fdi fferent f igurat ive compone nts, but a lso o f a compone nt sho w ing a n ident ica lnumber.64/1998 ES SSI USA LoC28/1999 EN LoC

296/1999 EN LoC

1134/1999 ES 911 j LoC100111999 FR r!. LoC

845/2000 EN ,r LoC143212001 EN KALMA LoC

KAI.MA

On the contrary, in general the identity or similarity of the figurativecomponent of the s igns is insuf fic ient to e stab lish s imilar ity in cas es w he re a tlea s t one o f the s igns conta ins a fur ther w ord compone nt w h ich is no t sharedby the othe r s ign.692/1999 EN NoLoC885, EN No LoC88611999 FI(MUCCI122411999 EN OAPJVMT IC No LoC257612000 EN A No LoC

AS. PI Ii En53912001 EN No LoC688/2001 EN No LoC

1 :1000The Manual con cerning Opp osit ion, Part 2, Chap ter 2C age 27

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

28/33

Likel ihoo d of con fusion -Sim i lar ity of signs

As always, the outcome depends on the particular circumstances in eachindividual case. The finding may be different, in particular, due to thepredominant character of the common figurative component or due to thelimited d is t inct ivene ss of the w ord compo ne nt .58 31 19 99 (EN ) IS DN / IS DN (No0C);

#40 , es.,v2 6 3 7 1 2 0 0 0 (E N ) (LoC) .In other cases, the device element may "cooperate" with the word part inde fin ing a part icu lar concep t and ma y even he ip the unde rs tand ing o f wo rdsthat , in p r inc ip le, might no t be w ide ly know n to consume rs.C1 * ~7912001 (ES)cons ide red suf fic ie nt ly s imilar for Lo C bde v ice o f a moon , prese nt in bo th s igns ,

Spanish and English words "LUNA"consumers.5.2. "Multi-part" word signs

(L0C). The signs weres ed on t h e id en t it y o f g oods a s t h emade the e qu iva lence be twe en theand "MOON" clearer to Spanish

In these cases the whole sign or just one of its components is fullyincorporated in the other sign. The most frequent and problematic type ofcases concerns one w ord aga ins t tw o w ords .5.2.1. SimilarityIn assessing similarity (not the degree of distinctiveness, see followingpa ragraph ), the p r ior ity s ituat ion is o f li tt le re le vance a s the pub lic do es no t orw ould not know w hich mark is e ar lier on the Register .The length and me aning of the s igns a re of importance.Next , it is o f part icular importance w hethe r the common w ord can be ide nt if iedin an iso lated mann er in the tw o-w ord mark, e i ther because it is se parated bya backspace or hyphen, or is otherwise (because of its clear meaning)ide nt ifie d as s uch.The mere coincidence in a string of letters is not enough for similarity.Dec is ions sh ould not be bas ed on the mere fact that one s ign is "contained" inthe o ther one.Inven ted e xample: ANT / Fanta st ic, no s imilar ity.

In comp ar ing a ma rk cons i s t ing o f tw o w ords w ith equa l len gth w ith a markw h ich cons is t s o f on l y one o f those tw o w ords , gene ra lly spe ak ing , the re isThe Manual conce rning Opposi t ion, Part , Cha pter 2C age 28

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

29/33

L ikelihood o f confusion - Sim ilarity of signs

similarity of the signs (and in many cases, depeciiof course of otherfactors and in particular the degree of distinctiveness& earlier mark, LoCfor identical goods).,The Office does not follow the theory that in these cases there is only LoC ifthe common element clearly dominates the composite mark.Rather, in such cases, LoC will generally be excluded only if:- if t* earlier mark is no longer recognizable as such in the younger mark(see above, ANT / Fantastic);-f the elements added in the younger mark are clearly preponderant4(invented example: LIFE / Thomson - helps you create a better life)-f through the addition of other elements the younger mark becomeconceptually different (invented example: New Line / Skyline);-f the earlier mark has a low degree of inherent distinctiveness or isclose to a descriptive term.Practical cases:1 3 2 2 1 1 9 9 9 PLANET PLANET SOCCER No LoC1 4 2 5 1 1 9 9 9 SIMPLE SIMPLE LIFE No LoCIn all other cases the general rule of thumb is that if a sign as a whole is fullyincorporated in the other sign, the signs are similar and, when the goods are.identical or highly similar and absent other specific factors, there will also beIikelihood of confusion.EU, 0-120/04, "Thomson Life/Life"This is in line with the CFI judgments (each time, LoC was confirmed):T-286102, ,,KIAP MOU/MOU "T-169102, ,,NEGRA MODELO/MODELO"T-112/03, ,,FlexiairlFlex",-T-32/03, ,,JELLO SCHUHPARKISCHUHPARK"T-356102, ,,VITAKRAFT/KRAFFT"T-104/01, ,,MISS FIFTIES/FIFTIES"Examp les of OD decisions:4 4 1 1 9 9 8 SIMPLE SIMPLE D'ANVERS L oC3 9 7 1 1 9 9 9 STITCHES Broken Stitches L oC425/1999 ILUSION SMOOTH ILLUSIONS Lo C4 3 0 1 1 9 9 9 STONES PRECIOUS STONES Lo C1 1 3 7 1 1 9 9 9 MAS & JOVER JOVER L oC62512000 SU N SUNPLUS LoGIn 119812002 , "MICRO FOCUS/FOCUS", LoC was found, the contrarydecision of the BoA, R-54212002-2, has been appealed to the CFI.

The Ma nual co nce rning Oppos ition, Part 2, C hapter 2C Page 29

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

30/33

Lik e//hoo d of confusion - Similarity of signs

Although usually more attention is placed to the beginning of a word, itge ne ra lly does n ot matter much whe ther the common e leme nt cons t itutes thef irs t or the se cond e leme nt of the compo s i te ma rk.In part icu la r , w he re the yo ung er mark is the compo s i te mark, it sho u ld notmatter too much w hethe r the young er mark incorpora tes the e ar lie r mark asits first or second e lement. The protection against LoC applies in bothdirect ions : the ow ne r of the ea r lier mark is p rotected no t on ly aga inst that theyoun ge r mark w ill be u nde rs tood as re ferr ing to h i s goo ds , but a l so tha t h i smark will be ta ken a s referr ing to the junior party's go od s.See the fo llow ing C FI judge men ts w here the compos ite mark is the younge rmark and the common e lement a ppe ars in se cond pos it ion (LoC w as found):T-32/03, ,,JELLO SCHUHPARKISCHUHPARK"T-286/02, ,,KIAP MOU/MOU"T-169/02, ,,NEGRA MO DELO /MODEL O "T-31 7/03 , "DERBIVARIANT/Va ria nt"The pre v iou s p rac t ice a ccord ing to w h i ch the common e leme nt, if appe ar ingas the s econd pa r t o f the compos i te mark, mus t be p redo m inan t i n o rde r toconciude s imilar ity of the s igns , sha l l no long e r be fol low ed .Obso le te:1968 12000 (EN) JAFFA SUNRISE / SUNRISE (No L0 C);276 8120 00 (EN) KALISTARLITE / STARLITE (No L0 C).

W he re bo th s i gns con ta in fu r the r e leme n ts to the common comp one n t , thecoincidence in a common component is generally insufficient in itseif fores tab l ish ing s im ila r ity o f s igns . In th os e case s it cons t itu tes a fac tor ag a ins ts imilar ity if both s igns ha ve a mea ning on their ow n.5.2.2. Distinctiveness of the earl/er signThe de gree of d is t inct ivene ss of the e ar lier mark (not o f the youn ge r mark) isnormal ly ass es se d a t the leve l of the ove ra ll ana lys is of LoC , an d no t (yet) atthe level of esta bl ish ing s imilar ity of the s igns. How eve r, it is reca lled tha t forthe a na lys is o f compo s i te s igns vs. one-w ord s igns the level of d is t inct ivene ssof the co mmon or differ ing eleme nts is of pa rt icular s ign i fican ce.Th is a pproa ch is in l ine w ith the f ind ing o f the Co urt that the d is t inct ivene ss ofthe earlier sign increases the likelihood of confusion. When the differencesbe tw ee n compo ne nts o f s igns cons i s t in the ir most d is t inc t ive e leme nts , theove ral l impres sion the y give w il l be different.I t sp ea ks in favo ur o f LoC if the e leme nt in w h i ch the marks d iffe r is o f le ssinhe rent d is t inct ivene ss tha n the common e leme nt.Example:CFI, T-1 69/02, ,,NEGRA MODELO/MODELO",,negra " stand s for da rk bee r .The higher degree of distinctiveness of the common element may also beThe Manual concerning Opp osi tion, Part 2, Cha pter 2C age 30

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

31/33

Lik elihood of confusion - Sim ilarity of signs

acqu ired th rough us e.1 0 0 0 1 1 999 CRISTAL / CRISTAL CASTELLBLANC H (LoC ).5.3. NamesIn pr inc ip le, the re a re no spe c if ic criter ia to b e taken into a ccoun t w he n na mesare compared. However, when assess ing likelihood of confusion, a specialap proa ch is just i fied in relat ion to s igns w hich conta in (bu sines s) name s, s incethe public may perceive and evaluate the function of their representationdi fferent ly from othe r compo ne nts o f s igns, w hich may h ave an impact on thedis t inct ivene ss of a t rad e mark.5.3.1. (Business) names in combination with other components

If a s ign conta ins bo th a (bus ines s) name and ano ther w ord compone nt , thereis the te nde ncy to eva lua te his further component as pre do mina nt . Th i s isbecause in general the public understands the further component as theprime indicator of origin in respect of the specific goods and services. The(business) name is regarded by the public as of subsidiary nature in suchc a s e s .364 /1999 (FR) GATSBY BY GAT / GATSBY (L0C );39611999 (FR) GALA DE LOEWE / G GALA PERFUMERIES (LoC);449/199 9 (DE) DO CKERS / Do cke rS by Ge rli (Lo C);290 1200 1 (EN) SPINNING mad e in ltaly by M ile na / SPINNING (LoC).The pe rcep t ion o f the p ub l ic may be d iffe ren t w he re the u se o f a (bus ine s s )na me as ind icator o f or ig in is commo n in the pa rt icu lar ma rket se ctor. Yet, ajunior applicant should not be allowed to file somebody else's mark by justad ding h is ow n bus ine ss n ame . A d if fere nt conc lus ion might be rea ched i f thecommon e lemen t is w ea k (le ss d ist inct ive).5.3.2. First and family namesArgume n ts o f the p a r t ies ab ou t the r igh t to u se one 's ow n (bus ine s s ) nameare no t va lid in opp os i t ion p roceed ings, s ince i t doe s no t in f luen ce the issue ofwhether there will be likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.Furthermore, it sho u ld b e noted tha t the reg is t ra t ion o f t rade marks d oe s n othinder the use of personal names due to the special protection which isprovided for in Article 12(a) CTMR and in the relevant national trade marklaw s according to Art ic le 6(1)(a) of the Trad e Ma rk Direct ive.177 120 00 (EN) GIO RGI / GIORGIO (LoC ).Family na me s ha ve , in pr inc ip le, a h ighe r intr ins ic va lue a s indicato rs of theorigin of goods or services than irst names. This is because commonexper ience sho w s tha t the same f ir s t name s may be l ong to g rea t numbe r o fpeo p le t h a t d o n o t h a ve a ny th in g i n common , whe rea s t h e p r e s en c e o f th esa me su rname cou ld imply the e xis te nce of some link be tw ee n them ( ide nt ityThe Ma nual concerning Oppo sition, Pa rt 2, Chap ter 2C Page 31

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

32/33

Lik elihoo d of con fusion - Similarity of signs

of the p erso ns o r a family link). There fore, its dist inctiven es s is highe r.The application of these sub-rules require that the relevant public wouldinde ed recogn ise the s igns a s name p lus surname o f a na tura l person , ra therthan a s fancy terms.In some cases, a word will not necessarily be perceived as a first name ifused a l one:467/1999 JFR 1 ROSY ROSY O'GRADY Lo CThe similarity of signs that consist of names should be ana lysed in thetradit ion al w ay, taking into a ccou nt the visua l an d ph on etic s imilar ities:78912000 EN Emilio Tucci Emidio Pucci (L0C, confirmed by CFI T-8103 )Usual or phonetically irrelevant variations of the same name w ill lead to af ind ing of high s imilarity of the s igns:

Signs145211999 FR IVONNE YVONNE (fig) highlysimilar

I f name s a re d i fferent , the fact that both a re Chr is t ian or I ta l ian n ame s is notre levan t. In pa rt icular, it is no t correct to con s ider th is as case of concep tua lsimilar ity. A name is no t a "con cep t".The sp e c ia l c ircums tan ces conce rn ing the d i s t inc t iven e ss o f na mes re ferredto abo ve ap p ly w hen comparing compos i te s igns:- Firs t name aga inst iden t ica l firs t name plus su rname:There are so many persons having an identical first name that the mereco inc ide nce in a firs t name w ill in g en era l no t lea d to a re leva nt l ike l ihoo d o fconfus ion.132611999 (EN) LAURA/ LAURA MERCIER (No L0C), confirmed by BoAR9512000-2.An exception would only apply if the public would use the first name of afamous person as a synonym for the complete name and where the goodsrelate to the field of activity of that person. Or where the earlier mark,cons is t ing of a f irs t name on ly, has acquired a h igh d is t inct ivene ss.R0643/2003-1 i FR i KENZO KEN ZO TAKADALo cInvented example:Boris / Boris Becker for ten nis rackets

The Manua l conc erning Oppos ition, P art 2, C hapter 2C Page 32

8/4/2019 Bilaga 16

33/33

Lik e//hoo d of confusion - Similarity of signs

-irst name plus surname against identical first name plus differentsurname:There is less similarity of the signs and thus less likelihood of confusion if thesurnames arte different.Invented example:Michael Schumacher / Michael Ballack (No LoC)-irst name plus surname against different first name plus identicalsurname:Where the surname is identical but the first name is different, the rule that thefamily name is more relevant must be attenuated, taking into account thelength and frequency of the two elements, as weil as whether the first namehas the same gender.The signs should still be considered similar in view of the common element soas not to preclude reliance on reputation.

LoC (in268812000 EN JOHN SMITH BETTY SMITH view ofreputation)If the first name is "normal" in the respective language, more emphasis isgenerally placed on the surname:

LoC,237512001 IT ENZO FUSCO ANTONIO FUSCO confirmed

by CFI T-____________ 185/03Surname vs. first name plus identical surnameWhere two s igns contain the same surname, there will be a finding ofsimilarity of signs despite the presence of additional first names either in oneor in both trade marks. Reason: The surname alone will be perceived as theshort version of the full name, thus identifying the same origin.70411999 (EN) REDAELLI / Giorgio Redaelli (L0C);82011999 (ES) Renoir! IVES RENOIR (LoG);80312000 (EN) BELTRAN / DARIO BELTRAN (L0C).This is attenuated, and the result might be different, if the surname is frequentin the territory concerned.280512004 DE KAISERESIGN MICHAEL KAISER No LoCSOFT LINE