Ex officio review of relevant grounds for trade mark refusal: a Greek example of caring too much?

The blogger's understanding is that most EU jurisdictions, as well as the OHIM, are not very sympathetic to the "crowded field" argument, when assessing confusing similarity of trade marks. This seems particularly true in cases where the TM Office does not conduct a check on relevant grounds for refusal and leaves it up to possibly interested parties to settle their disputes in opposition proceedings. On the other hand, the Greek TM Office reviews applications on relevant grounds and is generally rather receptive to an appropriately crafted crowded field argument.

In this instance, the Greek TM Office rejected this trade mark application, filed in connection with heating installations and relevant apparatus in Class 11. The rejection was based on likelihood of confusion with two prior CTMs for "SUNRAY" (word) in classes 9 and 11. The two prior identical marks belonged to two different entities, which do not seem to have bothered one another over this, most likely as the earlier SUNRAY CTM was filed n connection with apparatus and parts for swimming pools, whereas the later SUNRAY CTM designates various types of lamps and devices for controlling the brightness and temperature of lamps and heaters in aquariums and terrariums. 

The "liquid coincidence" (aquarium - swimming pool) between the earlier CTMs was probably not enough to spur controversy. On the other hand, the Greek Office considered all relevant goods "identical" (not similar) and rejected the application. The applicant did not file any observations to the initial refusal, but can still file a recourse action against the Office's decision.

Reviewing relevant grounds of refusal
"SUNRAY" is not entirely uncommon for class 9 and 11 goods, though, in terms of signs similarity, it would have little importance, in view of the significant similarity of the marks involved. On the other hand, it is hard to agree that heating installations are identical with lamps and/or swimming pool filters. Moreover, when an applicant is faced with a provisional refusal where such goods are considered "identical", it would be hard for him to imagine how an appropriate restriction would get him out of harm's way.

Perhaps, this is a case of where the Greek TM Office was overly diligent. The problem may be that there are cases where it is not as diligent as it should be.
Ex officio review of relevant grounds for trade mark refusal: a Greek example of caring too much? Ex officio review of relevant grounds for trade mark refusal: a Greek example of caring too much? Reviewed by Nikos Prentoulis on Friday, October 16, 2015 Rating: 5

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

Powered by Blogger.