EU-oppositieprocedure o.g.v. het oudere Gemeenschapsbeeldmerk “ENSTO” tegen het beeldmerk “ONESTO” voor o.a. schakelaars, zekeringen, stekkers, stopcontacten en verdeelkasten. Het BHIM heeft de oppositie toegewezen en het Gerecht bevestigt dit oordeel. Verwarringsgevaar wordt aangenomen: er is sprake van identieke waren en een geringe mate van visuele en auditieve overeenstemming tussen de tekens. Voor het Franstalige publiek stemmen de tekens echter in hoge mate overeen in auditief opzicht. Een begripsmatige vergelijking is niet aan de orde, nu het litigieuze teken “ONESTO” slechts een betekenis heeft in de Italiaanse taal. Verder volgt uit het feit dat er andere merken bestaan die met het oudere Gemeenschapsmerk “ENSTO” zouden overeenstemmen, nog niet dat dit laatste merk weinig onderscheidend vermogen zou hebben.
36 In that regard, it must be found that, although the pronunciation of the letters ‘o’ and ‘en’, situated at the beginning of the respective signs, is not identical in French, it may none the less be very similar. Thus, for the French‑speaking public, the only noticeable difference between the signs, from an aural point of view, resides in the third letter of the sign applied for, namely ‘e’, which does not feature in the earlier sign. Moreover, it should be noted, as did the Board of Appeal, that the ending ‘sto’, common to both signs, is quite unusual for the French‑speaking public, with the result that the fact that those endings coincide will be noticed easily. Consequently, the Board of Appeal was right to find there to be a high level of aural similarity for the French‑speaking public. In so far as concerns the non‑French‑speaking public, the signs have only a low degree of aural similarity since only the final syllable is the same in the two signs, as was also found by the Board of Appeal.
41 In the present case, as has been stated above, the goods covered by the opposing marks are identical. The signs are both visually and aurally similar. For French‑speaking consumers, the signs are highly similar from an aural point of view. A conceptual comparison is not relevant in this case, given that the sign applied for has a meaning only for the Italian‑speaking public, whereas it does not in any of the other languages of the European Union. Therefore, it must be found that there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.
Lees het arrest hier.
IEPT20130319, GEU, Yueqing Onesto Electric v BHIM
