The Court of First Instance (CFI) of the European Communities has given its ruling today in Case T-301/03 Canali Ireland Ltd v OHIM, Canal Jean Co. Inc., on a Commmunity trade mark (CTM) appeal from OHIM's Second Board of Appeal. Canal applied to register as a CTM a figurative mark (depicted here) for clothing in Class 25. Canali opposed, citing its earlier Italian registration of the word mark CANALI for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 34 and 42 and submitting that there was a likelihood of confusion. The opposition succeeded before the Opposition Division, which concluded that the high likelihood of association between the two marks outweighed their relatively low degree of similarity. The Second Board of Appeal disagreed, allowing Canal's mark to proceed to registration. Canali appealed.The CFI dismissed the appeal. In its decision it said (at para.61):
"As regards the applicant’s argument that it is common in the clothing sector for the same mark to be configured in different ways and for the same clothing manufacturer to use sub-brands for the same clothes, the Court finds that the degree of similarity between the marks at issue is not sufficiently great to justify the conclusion that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from undertakings which are economically linked".The CFI then added (at para. 62):
"As far as the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark is concerned, as the opposing marks have been found to be visually, aurally and conceptually dissimilar, this cannot alter the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion".The IPKat agrees. It now seems plain that decisi0ns such as Case T‑104/01 Oberhauser v OHIM – Petit Liberto (Fifties) [2002] ECR II‑4359 have had their day and that you can't get two marks'-worth of protection for one by registering a figurative mark with a word in it.
Click here for canals, canelloni, Canaletto
CANAL UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A TRADE MARK
![CANAL UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A TRADE MARK]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, June 28, 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