Home / Similitude signes

PARTAGER

Is it worth spending resources in protecting a pure figurative/device mark?

Is it worth spending resources in protecting a pure figurative/device mark? How can such a mark be enforced? Can it be the basis of successful actions towards semi-figurative marks? Under which conditions? All these questions led us to proceed to an analysis of the recent case-law concerning the French and European Offices’ position when comparing…

Read more
PARTAGER

GOTCHA got you

Judgment T-169/09 is for those of you who still doubt that the Community practice is abandoning the automatic prevalence of word parts over device elements for trademarks consisting of words and device. The General Court actually made it clear when upholding that the mark below was dissimilar with the word mark GOTHA by censoring the…

Read more
PARTAGER

V&S” is not “VS” for the OHIM

OHIM, Opposition Division, January 21, 2010 For the OHIM, the visual difference lying in the middle symbol “&” of the contested trademark was upheld as perceivable by consumers given the short length of the marks even if they coincided in the first and last letters. Aurally, the rhythm and intonation of the signs was quite…

Read more
PARTAGER

VOLVO et SOLVO se ressemblent (ouf!)

CFI – December 2, 2009 – VOLVO/ SOLVO The European Court of First Instance decided on December 2, 2009, that the marks VOLVO (word and word & device trademarks covering products of class 9) and SOLVO (in classes 9, 39 and 42) shown below were confusingly similar. The Board of Appeal had previously regarded the…

Read more
PARTAGER

SpagO n’est pas SPA

CFI – November 12, 2009- SPA / SPAGO On November 12, 2009, the European Court of First Instance upheld a low similarity between the Community trademark application for SpagO in class 33 and the earlier mark SPA in class 32. The marks at hands being short in length, the attention of the public was regarded…

Read more