Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de aanvrager van het woordmerk „BETWIN”, voor waren van onder meer de klassen 25, 26 en 28, strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1816/2010-1 van de eerste kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 30 juni 2011, waarbij is verworpen het beroep tegen de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling houdende gedeeltelijke weigering van inschrijving van dat merk in het kader van de oppositie van de houder van de nationale beeldmerken en het gemeenschapsbeeldmerk die het woordelement „bTwin” bevatten, voor waren van onder meer de klassen 25 en 28.
Het beroep wordt gedeeltelijk toegewezen; de beslissing wordt vernietigd voor zover het bepaalde waren van klasse 28 (o.a. opblaasbare zwembaden, speelgoed, en spellen) betreft. Het beroep wordt voor het overige verworpen.
32 The applicant submits that gymnastic and sporting articles, on the one hand, and toys, games and playthings as listed in paragraph 31 above, on the other hand, are different goods. Moreover, in its submission, they are usually not sold in the same specialist stores: gymnastic and sporting articles are sold in sports stores and special sports departments of department stores, whereas toys, games and playthings are usually sold in toy stores or the toy departments of department stores. The applicant adds that gymnastic and sporting articles, on the one hand, and toys, games and playthings, on the other hand, are also usually manufactured and distributed by different companies. Large manufacturers of gymnastic and sporting articles like Adidas, Puma or Nike usually do not also manufacture and distribute toys, games and playthings, while large toy manufacturers, like Mattel, Hasbro, Bandai, Lego, Playmobil or Steiff do not manufacture and distribute any gymnastic and sporting articles. The applicant infers from this that it should have been obvious to the Board of Appeal that there are substantial differences between gymnastic and sporting articles, on the one hand, and toys, games and playthings, on the other hand, which must lead to the conclusion that there is at most a low degree of similarity.
41 With the exception of the goods in Class 28 mentioned in paragraph 31 above, it is therefore necessary to uphold the Board of Appeal’s finding that the goods in Classes 25 and 28 covered by the marks at issue are identical or similar.
66 Accordingly, the Board of Appeal was right to find that there exists between the marks at issue phonetic identity and visual and conceptual similarities which are not counterbalanced by visual dissimilarities. Consequently, it must be considered that the marks at issue are globally similar.
75 In view of the foregoing, it cannot be ruled out that at least a part of the English speaking public is likely to believe that, with the exception of the toys, games and playthings identified in paragraph 31 above, the goods concerned in Class 25 and in Class 28 covered by the marks at issue come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. The Board of Appeal was therefore right to find that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the mark applied for in respect of those goods, without there being any need to establish whether that likelihood also existed in respect of the non English speaking part of the relevant public, as is apparent from the case-law referred to in paragraph 22 above.
Lees het arrest hier.
