Also decided by the Court of First Instance today was Case T-390/03 CM Capital Markets Holding SA v OHIM, Caja de Ahorros de Murcia. CM applied to register this figurative mark
as a Community trade mark for goods and services in Classes 1 through to 42. The opponent challenged this, citing its earlier Spanish rights in this mark 
for services in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42. The Opposition Division upheld the opposition in respect of certain services in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42 on the ground that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks in Spain. The Board of Appeal disagreed and threw the opposition out, so the opponent appealed to the CFI.The CFI, dismissing the appeal, agreed with the Board of Appeal that there was no likelihood of confusion, even in Spain. The fact that both marks shared the initials "CM" did not make them conceptually similar for the very good reason that the CM in each case stood for something quite different.
The IPKat agrees with this reasoning. It would be curious if, for example, in the United Kingdom the use of the letters "AA" suggested a conceptual similarity if the users were, respectively, the Automobile Association and Alcoholics Anonymous.
SHARED LETTERS DO NOT A CONCEPTUAL SIMILARITY MAKE ...
![SHARED LETTERS DO NOT A CONCEPTUAL SIMILARITY MAKE ...]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html