
The Cancellation Division invalidated the mark, considering it confusingly similar to IKEA's in relation to the same and similar goods and services but without taking any position on IKEA's argument that it was also entitled to well-known mark protection under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94. The Board of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that the contested mark and IKEA's earlier registrations were visually and conceptually dissimilar – in other words, by reference to two out of three possible bases for comparison – and that outweighed their aural similarity. Since furniture is rarely ordered orally, the aural similarity was not decisive. In addition, consumers tend to be observant, owing to the relatively high price of furniture and because of aesthetic considerations. They would therefore pay proper attention to the respective trade marks.

A scholar writes: "the word "IKEA" is an acronym comprising the initials of the name of the company's founder (Ingvar Kamprad), the farm where he grew up (Elmtaryd) and his home village (Agunnaryd)".

Google hits for IKEA + victim: 187,000
Google hits for IKEA + injury: 221,000
Google hits for IKEA + death: 506,000

Nice post. I am no IKEA fan, but I did note, with interest, the following Google searches:
ReplyDeleteIPKat + victim: 1,660
IPKat + injury: 3,710
IPKat + death: 6,550
I will admit I do not know what you guys pull in a year. Based upon IKEA's $5Billion in sales last year however, you seem to have IKEA outpaced by a considerable margin in the Google injury search result department.
I guess I never realized IP law was so dangerous ;)
Brett Trout
ECJ + incomprehensible: 1,810
ReplyDeleteEasyjet + cease and desist: 687
OHIM + class headings + madness: 0
Proctor & Gamble + dishwaher tablet without the phrase "registrable trade mark" : 9