Geen verwarringsgevaar tussen "EVENT" en "EVENTER EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS"

EU-oppositieprocedure o.g.v. ouder Duits woordmerk “EVENT” tegen het beeldmerk “EVENTER EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS” voor  o.a. beheer van commerciële zaken en zakelijke administratiediensten. Het BHIM wees de oppositie af en het Gerecht bevestigt dit oordeel. Verwarringsgevaar tussen de tekens wordt niet aangenomen: het relevante publiek, bestaande uit Duitse professionals met een hoog aandachtsniveau, zal ondanks de soortgelijke diensten, de overeenstemmende tekens en het normaal onderscheidend vermogen van het oudere merk niet in verwarring raken. De tekens stemmen in beperkte mate visueel overeen (het litigieuze teken omvat het achtervoegsel -er, drie extra woordelementen en beeldelementen) en stemmen in auditief en begripsmatig opzicht overeen (beiden verwijzen naar het woord ‘event’).

69      In paragraph 26 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal held that the words ‘event management systems’ would probably not be pronounced by the relevant public and that the contested marks were phonetically similar, on the ground that the syllables ‘e’ and ‘vent’ of the earlier mark are similar to the syllables ‘e’, ‘ven’ and ‘ter’ making up the first word element of the trade mark applied for.

78      Secondly, while it is true that the first word element of the mark applied for, the word ‘eventer’, has no meaning for the German-speaking public which knows English, it is nevertheless the case that the relevant public could associate it with the idea of event, especially because that word is followed by the phrase ‘event management systems’. However, since the latter element of the mark applied for, first, is not negligible and, second, is understood by the relevant public as referring to the idea of an event management system, the overall impression that the mark applied for makes on the relevant public and that made by the earlier mark Event are conceptually similar, in accordance with the Board of Appeal’s assessment, which must therefore be upheld.

89      However, since the only services covered by the earlier mark with respect to which there could be a likelihood of confusion are those of ‘development of hotels’, which are similar to the services of ‘business management; business administration’, covered by the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal mistakenly held that the earlier mark had a weak distinctive character. In effect, the word ‘event’ does not refer to ideas commonly associated with those services.

92      Since the relevant public for similar services is made up of professionals, who have a high degree of attentiveness, it is necessary to uphold the Board of Appeal’s finding that the similarities between the signs are insufficient for it to be held that there is a likelihood of confusion with respect to the services which must be held to be similar.

Lees het arrest hier.