☎ 069 71 67 2 67 0
US  EU  CN

Begründung Widerspruch gegen Gemeinschaftsmarke englisch (Ähnliche Marken)

OHIM

Opposition against CTM application ..., RegNo. ..., based on CTM ...
Opposition No B ...

These are the opponent´s observations as well as further facts and evidence in support of the opposition filed on …………………. …………………………

 

 

 

I.

 

On ………………………….  the  applicant  filed  application  No  ………………………  to  register  the  trade  mark …………………………………..for goods and services in classes ................... The application was published on…….

 

The opposition is directed against all of the goods and services covered by the contested

trade mark.

 

The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

 

……………………..  trade  mark ………………….. registration  No  ………………………..filed on ../../…. and registered on ../../…. for goods/services  in class …………………………………….

 

The opposition is based on all of the goods covered by the earlier mark.

 

II.

The opponent invokes Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR.

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are independent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs and the relevant public.

1.       The goods and services

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods of services include, inert alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sale outlets, the producers the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other complementary to each other.

The goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:

 

Class…                                  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

The contested goods and services are the following

 

Class…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Contested goods/services in class……..

The contested…………………………………………is identically covered by the earlier mark. Therefore, these services are indentical.

 

Contested goods/ services in class…..

The  contested services ……………………………………………………….are considered to be similar the opponent´s ………………………………services.

 

2.       Signs

 

Earlier Trademark

Contested sign

 

(sign)

 

(sign)

 

Visually, the signs are similar to the extent that they coincide in…………………………

 

Aurally, irrespective of the different pronunciation rules in different parts of the relevant territory, the pronunciation of the marks coincides in the syllable………………………..

Conceptually, the words -................and ……………………have a meaning in<relevant language> ……………..means……………………………………. The element ………………………in both marks refers to………………………………………………………..

Taking into account the abovementioned coincides, it is considered that the signs under coparison are visually, aurally and conceptually similar similar for <relevant language> Speakers

 

3.       Distinctive and dominant elements of the signs

In determining the existence of likelihood of confusion, the comparison of the  conflicting signs must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

As it will be perceived as a single element, the earlier mark has no elements which could be considered clearly more distinctive or dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.

The element……………..in the contested sign will be associated with ………………………….This  element is non-distinctive for the relevant goods/services, since they are all ……………………………related and, therefore, it merely indicates the generic nature or type of the business providing the goods/services. The part of the relevant public who understands the meaning of that element will not pay as much attention to it as to the other more distinctive elements of the mark. Consequently, the impact of this non-distinctive element is limited when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

The element………………………………… in the contested sign is the dominant element as it is the most eye-catching, given that it is …………………………………………. than the other element…………………..

 

4.       Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

 

The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account in

the global assessment of likelihood of confusion. The earlier mark is…………………..

 

5.       Relevant public

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question. In the case at hand, the services are directed both at the public at large and at the

professional public. The level of attention may vary from average to high.

In determining

6.       Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

 

The assessment below focuses on the<relevant  language>-speaking part of the public. In the

present case, the goods/services are similar and identical.

 

Even though there are differences between the marks these differences are not sufficient to

outweigh the similarities and the overall impression given by the marks.

 

It has been shown above that ………………………………………………………….

The earlier mark is reproduced in its entirety in the contested sign. Although …………………. does not appear in the contested mark as a separate element, it nonetheless functions as an independent distinctive element within the contested sign because the <relevant  language>-speaking consumer will dissect the contested sign into …………….. and …………………even though it is written as one word, particularly since it cannot be presumed that …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

However, this must be weighed against the principle that the average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks and must place his trust in the imperfect picture of them that he has kept in his mind (judgment of 22/06/1999, C-342/97, ‘Lloyd Schuhfabrik’). As such, consumers, in general, tend to remember similarities rather than dissimilarities between signs. More importantly, there is a likelihood of confusion because although consumers may not directly confuse the actual marks themselves, they may, under the circumstances, believe that the marks are from the same undertaking or economically-linked

undertakings.

 

 In the present case, even though the differences between the marks are sufficient to avoid direct confusion between the marks, there is, in view of the similarity between the services and the nature of the industries, where, as mentioned above in section a), services can be offered by the same business under sub-brands, a likelihood of confusion.

 

In this case, …………………………………………………may be perceived as indicating a particular type or

level of services provided by …………………………………………………………….

 

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, even the specialised public.

 

As earlier right …………………………………….. leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the services against which the opposition is to be directed.

(Autor RA Normen Lang)

Das vollständige Dokument können Sie nach dem Kauf sehen und als Worddokument (.docx) speichern und bearbeiten.

49,00 EURZugang zu allen Dokumenten kaufen

zzgl. MwSt., garantiert keine Folgekosten, zeitlich unbeschränkter Zugang

Weitere Informationen zur Mustervertragsdatenbank

Sie haben bereits einen Zugang? Melden Sie sich bitte hier an.



TÜV zertifizierter Kaufprozess für Begründung Widerspruch gegen Gemeinschaftsmarke englisch

Kostenloses Hilfe-Forum: Unsere Anwälte beantworten gern Ihre Fragen zu "Begründung Widerspruch gegen Gemeinschaftsmarke englisch" in unserem HilfeForum.

Sofort downloaden und anpassen: Alle Verträge können Sie gleich nach dem Kauf in den üblichen Programmen (z.B. Word) bearbeiten und anpassen.

Kompetente Beratung durch unsere Rechtsanwälte: Falls Sie das Dokument "Begründung Widerspruch gegen Gemeinschaftsmarke englisch" oder einen anderen Vertrag bzw. Vorlage anwaltlich anpassen wollen stehen Ihnen unsere Rechtsanwälte gern zur Verfügung. Fragen Sie uns nach einem Kostenvoranschlag!