Alle dossiers
Gepubliceerd op donderdag 2 juni 2022
IEF 20748
24 mei 2022
EUIPO - OHIM 24 mei 2022, IEF 20748; (Daum tegen Dwarfs),

Uitspraak ingezonden Michelle Seel, The Legal Group.

Oppositie tegen aanvraag van Daumonet afgewezen

EUIPO 24 mei 2022, IEF 20748, IEFbe 3460; B 3 128 022 (Daum tegen Dwarfs) Oppositieprocedure tussen Daum (opposant) en Dwarfs Patents and Trademarks (aanvrager) met betrekking tot de merken Daum en Daumonet. Op 10 augustus 2020 heeft Daum oppositie ingediend tegen alle waren en diensten van Uniemerkaanvraag nr. 18 236 220 DAUMONET (woordmerk). De oppositie is gebaseerd op de Franse merkinschrijving nr. 3 651 131, DAUM (woordmerk) en de internationale merkinschrijving met aanduiding van Oostenrijk, Benelux, Kroatië, Tsjechië Republiek, Duitsland, Spanje, Hongarije, Italië, Portugal, Roemenië, Slowakije en Slovenië nr. 228 009, (beeldmerk). De oppositie tegen de aanvraag van Daumonet is afgewezen.

The opponent argues that the public has an imperfect recollection of signs and that evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice. In addition, the opponent recalls that likelihood of confusion covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting
signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically specific collection sold by the opponent.
Yet, taking further into account that the earlier marks are distinctive to a normal degree, the Opposition Division considers the significant visual and aural differences between the signs at issue in their respective lengths and numbers of sounds and syllables, as explained above, are conspicuous to anyone, even with an imperfect recollection of the signs, and sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion, including the likelihood of association, between the marks even in relation to identical goods and services, as assumed in the present case. Considering all the above, even assuming that the goods and services at issue are identical, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.