Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de aanvrager van het woordmerk „GOLDEN BALLS”, voor waren van de klassen 9, 21 en 24, strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1310/20101 van de eerste kamer van beroep van het BHIM, waarbij is vernietigd de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling houdende afwijzing van de oppositie van de houder van het gemeenschapswoordmerk „BALLON D'OR”, voor onder andere waren en diensten van de klassen 9, 14, 16, 25 en 41.
De beslissing wordt vernietigd voor wat betreft het eerste punt van het dictum (in dit punt wordt de oppositie toegewezen voor wat betreft de waren en diensten voor de klassen 9, 28 en 41, met uitzondering van ‘apparaten en instrumenten voor o.a. de geleiding en het beheersen van elektriciteit’ van klasse 9). De vordering tot vernietiging van de beslissing wordt voor het overige afgewezen. Er is geen sprake van verwarringsgevaar; een louter begripsmatige overeenstemming is onvoldoende om van verwarringsgevaar uit te gaan.
45 Even assuming, like the Board of Appeal, that the words ‘golden’ and ‘ball’ are part of basic English-language vocabulary and that they are, therefore, as such, understandable for the average consumer, including the average francophone consumer, that does not mean that that consumer, who will generally – as the parties agree – have a weak understanding of the English language, will understand those words in their specific combination ‘golden balls’ immediately as an English translation of the French expression ‘ballon d’or’, which constitutes the earlier mark.
46 In that regard, it must be held that the differences between the signs at issue argue against such an immediate conceptual comparison.
59 In that context, it is apparent from settled case-law, as noted in paragraphs 53 and 54 above, that the possibility cannot be ruled out that a mere conceptual similarity between two marks can create a likelihood of confusion where the goods are similar, provided that the earlier mark has a high distinctive character. It is sufficient to note that such a specific distinctive character of the mark BALLON D’OR has not been established in the present case as regards the goods concerned. Moreover, even if that mark enjoys a high distinctive character, and whilst taking account of the identical or similar character of the goods and services in question, the very weak conceptual similarity, requiring prior translation, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be sufficient to create, in itself, a likelihood of confusion on the part of the target public (see Hai, cited in paragraph 52 above, paragraphs 61, 64 and 65).
60 Therefore, it must be held that the Board of Appeal was wrong to find the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public for the identical or similar goods and services covered by the signs at issue in classes 9, 28 and 41, with the exception of ‘apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity’ in class 9. Due to the fact that the signs at issue are in different languages, a manifest distinction is created between them so that, as noted in paragraphs 44 to 48 above, the average consumer will not immediately associate them without undergoing an intellectual process of translation (see, to that effect, Buonfatti, cited in paragraph 43 above, paragraph 87).
61 It must therefore be held that the contested decision must be annulled to the extent of point 1 of its operative part, in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and upheld the opposition for the goods and services covered by the mark applied for in Classes 9, 28 and 41 with the exception of ‘apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity’ in class 9, on the basis of breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Lees het arrest hier.
