B9 9623 Gerecht EU, 5 mei 2011, zaak T-460/09 en T-461/09, Cheapflights International Ltd. tegen OHIM / Cheapflights
Merkenrecht. Oppositieprocedures van Cheapflights International Ltd. gebaseerd op het ouder Ierse woordmerk CHEAPFLIGHTS, het oudere Ierse beeldmerk CHEAPFLIGTS.IE en een oudere Internationale beeldmerk (afbeelding boven) tegen de registratie van beeldmerken Cheapflights (met resp. wit en zwart vliegtuigje).
Het Hof vernietigt de beslissing van de Board of Appeal, die eerder oordeelde dat beide tekens weinig overeenstemming vertonen en dat gezien het beschrijvende karakter van de oudere merken verwarringsgevaar zou zijn uitgesloten, ook al is er sprake van deels identieke en deels soortgelijke diensten. Het Gerecht oordeelt dat die beoordeling een onzorgvuldige was, “based on a premiss the truth of which has not been proved to the required legal standard.”
43. Likewise, the word ‘cheapflights’ and the representation of an aeroplane cannot be regarded as descriptive of the ‘organisation of competitions’ service, ‘weather information’ services and services connected with the booking of accommodation in Classes 41, 42 and 43 respectively, covered by the marks at issue, on the sole ground that they may have a connection with travel arrangements. The same criticism may be made as regards the ‘medical advisory services for travellers’ in Class 44 covered by the mark applied for and the services related to the ‘provision of information relating to vaccination for overseas travel’ in the same class covered by the earlier mark.
44. Furthermore, the incomplete nature of the analysis of the possibly descriptive character of the elements common to the marks at issue is borne out by the finding in paragraph 32 of the contested decision, to the effect that the word ‘cheapflights’ and the representation of an aeroplane are descriptive ‘for large parts’ of the services concerned, which does not however give further particulars about the services to which reference is being made.
45. By proceeding in that manner, the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently substantiate its view regarding the descriptive character of the word ‘cheapflights’ and the representation of an aeroplane with regard to all the services covered by the marks at issue. Consequently, its finding as to the absence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, in so far as it is based on the allegedly descriptive character of the elements common to those marks, is based on a premiss the truth of which has not been proved to the required legal standard.
