Kleding & parfum

B9 10527. Gerecht EU, 8 december 2011, zaak T‑586/10, Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 tegen OHIM / Parfums Givenchy SA.

Merkenrecht. EU-oppositieprocedure o.g.v. oudere gemeenschaps- en nationale Deense woordmerken ONLY tegende  inschrijving van het gekleurde beeldmerk met de woordelementen ‘only givenchy’ voor waren van klasse 3 (parfum). De oppositie wordt afgewezen. Het onderscheidend vermogen van de oudere merken ONLY is zwak en de tekens stemmen onvoldoende overeen. Eventuele bekendheid van het oudere merk zou dat bij soortgelijke kunnen compenseren, maar die bekendheid is nu juist alleen ingeroepen waar het waren betreft (kleding) die volgens het hof niet soortgelijk zijn aan de waren van Givenchy (parfum). Verwarringsgevaar is derhalve niet aannemelijk:

46. (…) the likelihood of confusion presupposes that the signs and the goods or services covered are identical or similar, the reputation of a mark being a factor which must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the signs or between the goods or services is sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. 

47. However, as is clear from the notice of opposition which appears in OHIM’s case-file, the applicant has claimed a reputation only as regards earlier Community trade mark No 638 833 and earlier Danish trade mark VR 2000 02183, which cover goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25, but has not claimed a reputation nor proved intensive use as regards earlier Danish trade mark VR 2001 03359, which concerns identical goods.

48. In those circumstances, as regards earlier Danish trade mark VR 2001 03359, in view of the weak distinctive character of the word ‘only’, resulting from the fact that it is commonly used in the English language and is easily understood, even by the non-English-speaking public, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion.

49. With regard to the two other earlier rights, namely Danish trade mark VR 2000 02183 and Community trade mark No 638 833 (…) this Court finds – unlike the Board of Appeal, which concluded that those goods were, at most, similar – that the goods are different.

53. It follows that there can be no likelihood of confusion, since, even if the earlier marks had acquired a high degree of distinctiveness, the goods set out in paragraph 6 above designated by earlier Danish and Community trade marks VR 2000 02183 and No 638 833 are, as the Opposition Division had already stated, different from those covered by the mark applied for, so that one of the conditions of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, namely that the goods be similar, is not met.

Lees het arrest hier.