Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Community trade mark appeals / Jeremy Phillips / Au secours!

Au secours!

- ,
There's another non-English Court of First Instance decision today on an appeal from an OHIM Board of Appeal on a Community trade mark law issue. It's Case T‑106/06, Demp BV, anciennement Demp Holding BV v OHIM, BAU HOW GmbH. Available in French and German only, so far, it involves the two trade marks depicted here and the IPKat thinks it's an opposition based on likelihood of confusion. More than that, he's not sure. Can anyone kindly enlighten him? Please post explanations below or email the IPKat here.
Au secours! Au secours! Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Rating: 5

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousWednesday, 23 January 2008 at 13:49:00 GMT

    This might help to an extent:

    http://class46.blogspot.com/2008/01/cfi-bauhaus-v-bau-how.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Laurent TeyssèdreWednesday, 23 January 2008 at 14:47:00 GMT

    An opposition was filed, based on former trademark "bauhaus".

    According to the Court, there is no risk of confusion.
    Visually, differences are straightforward (structure, colours, tridimensional aspect, general shape).
    Phonetically, the Court admits that in some countries the similarities are strong between "bauhaus" and "bauhow".
    Conceptually, the comparison is not possible because the words "bau" and "how" do not have signification in one single language.

    For the Court, the phonetic similarity has little weight, because the products are mainly sold in self-service stores. There is a low risk for the consumer to confuse the products.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JeremyThursday, 24 January 2008 at 14:57:00 GMT

    My good friend Jean Pire (Gevers) has emailed me his own translation of paras 47 and 48: "47 It results from it that, in the overall assessment of the risk of confusion by the average consumers referred to in section 33 above, the phonetic similarity between the signs in conflict is of lower importance compared to the visual differences existing between those signs. The importance of this phonetic similarity is even more reduced for the average consumers of the products which are intended for a specialized public, and therefore their degree of attention is higher.

    48 Taking into account the important differences existing between the signs in conflict on the visual level, of the lower importance of their phonetic similarity and owing to the fact that those are either insusceptible to be the subject of a conceptual comparison, or could present some perceptible conceptual differences, it is necessary to conclude that the appeal board did not erred by ruling that there was no risk of confusion within the meaning of article 8, paragraph 1, under b), of Council Regulation n° 40/94, even if the products indicated by the signs in conflict are identical or similar".

    ReplyDelete
  4. JeremyThursday, 24 January 2008 at 15:02:00 GMT

    I've also just got an email from Venti Stoilov, an IP specialist from Bulgaria. He writes: "If I understand the case correctly, I think that there isn't a likelihood of confusion between these two trade marks - BAUHAUS and BAUNOW.

    My standpoint is that the two marks are written differently- HAUS/NOW - and the two marks have disparate colours.

    I agree that these marks are pronounced similarly and they look different, but when we make a comparison we should evaluate the marks as a whole".

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.