Converse lost a dispute for a shoe sole in the EU

pexels-photo-1353361.jpegThe General Court of the European Union has ruled in the case T-611/17 All Star (Converse) v EUIPO – Carrefour Hypermarchés. The case concerns the following already registered figurative European trademark for classes 17, 25,35:

CJ4JX4FZVCC523YA2TMALSKFLG766LZ66GCBK6GKXEAMQE5QIQ22H3KCJTKP6CENMYIUUNBNEKJQU.jpg

Against this mark, an application for a declaration of invalidity was filed by the French company Carrefour based on Article 52(1)(a) EUTMR and Article 7(1)(b) and (e)(ii) and (iii) EUTMR.

EUIPO invalidated the trademark at hand concluding that it is not possible for consumers to perceive it as a sign for trade origin. According to the Office, the practice of using simple geometric shapes for soles are widespread, as can be seen for many examples:

Untitled

Consumers will look on them as something that will help them to walk easily, comfortably or securely but not as a sign for trade origin.

Although the Office made some mistakes when it comes to the scope of goods and services for which this invalidation is applicable (corrected after that), the General Court confirmed this decision in its entirety.

The EUIPO decision is accessible here.

Advertisements

Color or figurative trademarks – that’s the question

paint-2985569_960_720The European court has issued a decision on case C‑578/17 Oy Hartwall Ab v Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus, which focuses on how exactly a color trademark should be presented in a trademark application and how an acquired distinctiveness has to be proved. In detail this case concerns:

In 2012, Hartwall applied for the following color trademark in Finland, described as follows: ‘The colours of the sign are blue (PMS 2748, PMS CYAN) and grey (PMS 877)’ (‘the mark at issue’):

download.png

The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Class 32 ‘Mineral waters’.

Following a preparatory decision of the Intellectual Property Office, Hartwall clarified that it was applying for registration of the mark at issue as a ‘colour mark’, not a figurative mark.

The Finnish Patent Office rejected the application on the ground that the trade mark applied for was devoid of distinctive character.

In that regard, the Office highlighted that the exclusive right to register certain colours cannot be granted if it is not established that the colours in respect of which protection is sought have acquired distinctive character through long-term significant use.

The decision of the Finnish Patent Office stated that the market study produced by Hartwall showed that the reputation of the mark at issue was established not with regard to the colours as such but with regard to the figurative sign the contours of which are defined and determined. Therefore, contrary to the requirement resulting from that office’s consistent practice, it found that the colour combination in respect of which protection is sought has not been established as having been used to identify the goods offered by Hartwall for a sufficient length of time and sufficiently widely to have acquired distinctive character in Finland through use, as of the date on which registration was sought.

Hartwall appealed against this decision before the Market Court in Finland but the appeal was dismissed.

According to the court, the graphic representation of the sign in respect of which protection was sought did not include a systematic arrangement associating the colours concerned in a predetermined and uniform way and, therefore, that mark did not satisfy the requirements with regard to the graphic representation.

Hartwall appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court highlights the importance of the case, in so far as the Intellectual Property Office is of the view that, as regards colour marks, the distinctive character of a sign must be proved by evidence of long-term significant use of the sign.

It is therefore unsure as to the consequences of the classification given to a sign by the person seeking protection of that sign under trademark law.

Because of this Supreme Administrative Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)  For the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive [2008/95] and the condition relating to the distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) thereof, is it of relevance whether the trade mark is to be registered as a figurative mark or a colour mark?

(2)  If the classification of the mark as a colour mark or figurative mark is of importance in the assessment of its distinctive character, is the mark, regardless of its representation as a drawing, to be registered as a colour mark in accordance with the trade mark application, or can it be registered only as a figurative mark?

(3) If it is possible to register, as a colour mark, a mark represented in the form of a drawing in the trade mark application, is it necessary for the registration as a colour mark of a mark which has been graphically illustrated in the trade mark application with the accuracy required by the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to colour marks (and which is not the registration as a mark of a colour in itself, abstract, without shape or contours), is it necessary to submit in addition solid evidence of use as required by the [Intellectual Property Office] or any such evidence?’

According to the European court:

In the overall analysis of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation, it is necessary to examine whether and to what extent the systematically arranged colour combination is capable of conferring inherent distinctive character on the sign in question.

Consequently, the answer to the first question is that Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the classification as a ‘colour mark’ or ‘figurative mark’ given to a sign by the applicant on registration is a relevant factor among others for the purpose of establishing whether that sign can constitute a trade mark within the meaning of Article 2 of the directive and, if so, whether it is distinctive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that directive, but does not release the competent trade mark authority from its obligation to carry out a global assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation of the mark considered, which means that that authority cannot refuse registration of a sign as a mark on the sole ground that that sign has not acquired distinctive character through use in relation to the goods or services claimed.

In the present case, the sign protection in respect of which is sought is represented by a figurative drawing, whereas the verbal description relates to a protection concerning two colours alone, that is, blue and grey. Moreover, Hartwall has clarified that it seeks to register the mark at issue as a colour mark.

Those circumstances appear to reveal an inconsistency showing that the application for protection under trade mark law is unclear and imprecise.

Consequently, the answer to the second question is that Article 2 of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the registration of a sign as a mark due to an inconsistency in the application for registration, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

Industrial lighting is not similar to Christmas tree lights according to the EU Court

pexels-photo-937548.jpeg

The Malaysian company IQ Group Holdings filed an application for LUMIQS as an European trademark through the Madrid system for the following goods:

Class 11: ‘Lighting fixtures for commercial use; LED (light-emitting diodes) lamps; light-emitting lighting apparatus; apparatus for lighting; electric lighting apparatus; bulbs for lighting; casings for lights; ceiling light fittings; ceiling lights; desk lights; electric lights; emergency lights; filters for lighting apparatus; gas lights; light bars; light reflectors; light shades; lighting panels; outdoor lightings; outdoor lighting fittings; spotlights; lighting tubes; security lightings; but not including Christmas tree lights or any of the aforesaid goods being for use with Christmas tree lights, and not including festival lights or any of the aforesaid goods for use with festival lights’.

Against this application, an opposition was filed by the German company  Krinner Innovation on the ground of its earlier European trademark LIMIX for classes:

Class 11: ‘lighting installations, namely electric lights for Christmas trees (chains of candle lights or decorative Christmas tree lights, candle lights without cables, decorative Christmas tree lights without cables), decorative, low-voltage Christmas tree lights’;

Class 28: ‘electric decorations for Christmas trees (chains and decorative Christmas tree lights without cables)’;

Initially, EUIPO upheld the opposition considering both signs similar for similar goods.

In the appeal, however, the General Court annulled this decision concluding that EUIPO erred in its assessment regarding the goods similarity.

According to the court:

In the present case, however, it is clear that the protection of the earlier marks is explicitly restricted to certain goods in Classes 11 and 28 for which they have been registered and does not extend to the goods in Class 11 referred to in the international registration in question. Moreover, the latter registration expressly excludes ‘Christmas tree lights or any of the aforesaid goods being for use with Christmas tree lights’ and ‘festival lights or any of the aforesaid goods for use with festival lights’ covered by the earlier marks.

Furthermore, it is not disputed that the goods concerned have different intended purposes. Thus, the goods in Class 11 covered by the international registration designating the European Union are used for practical and industrial purposes, whereas the goods in Classes 11 and 28 covered by the earlier marks, in respect of which proof of genuine use has been demonstrated, serve exclusively decorative and aesthetic purposes for Christmas trees.

 It follows from the foregoing that lighting apparatus for industrial use, on the one hand, and electric lights and decorations, on the other hand, cannot be deemed to be similar on the basis of the mere fact that they are both ‘light sources’ or ‘electrical lighting apparatus’, given that the nature and intended purpose of those goods are different, and that they are neither complementary nor in competition.

In addition, the fact that goods may be sold in the same commercial establishments, such as department stores or supermarkets, is not of particular importance, since very different kinds of goods may be found in such retail outlets and consumers do not automatically assume that they are from the same source. Thus, the sale of the goods covered by the conflicting signs may take place in retail outlets which are geographically close, without this giving rise to a clear complementarity between those goods from the consumer’s point of view. The same applies when, as in the present case, the goods at issue are sold online.

The full text of this decision can be found here.

Furnishing fabric can be a trademark – a decision by the EU Court

sofa-2155865_960_720.jpgThe European Court has issued a decision in case C‑21/18 Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn AB, which concerns the following:

Svenskt Tenn markets and sells furniture and furnishing fabrics and other decorative accessories.

During the 1930s, Svenskt Tenn started to work with the architect, Joseph Frank, who designed various patterns for furnishing fabrics for it, including a pattern called MANHATTAN, which it markets and sells and in respect of which Svenskt Tenn claims to be the holder of rights under copyright law.

On 4 January 2012, Svenskt Tenn filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). That figurative mark, designated MANHATTAN, was registered under number 010540268.

The goods and services for which that mark has been registered are in Classes 11, 16, 20, 21, 24, 27 and 35 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and correspond to inter alia, lampshades (Class 11), table cloths, table napkins of paper; coasters of paper; wrapping paper; writing or drawing books (Class 16), furniture (Class 20), household or kitchen utensils and containers; brushes; glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in other classes (Class 21), textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers (Class 24), carpets; wall hangings (non-textile); wallpaper (Class 27), retail services connected with the sale of furniture, cushions, mirrors, wallpaper, carpets, lamps, textile fabrics, textile products, fancy goods, household and kitchen utensils and containers, tableware, glassware, porcelain, earthenware, candlesticks, paper napkins, bags, jewellery, books and magazines (Class 35).

The figurative mark MANHATTAN is represented as follows:

Untitled.png

Textilis is a company incorporated under English law, owned by Mr Keskin, whose online trading activity began in 2013. The company has marketed fabrics and goods for interior decoration bearing patterns similar to those of the figurative mark MANHATTAN.

Svenskt Tenn brought an action for infringement of the trade mark MANHATTAN of which it is the proprietor and an action for infringement of its copyright against Textilis and Mr Keskin before the Stockholms tingsrätt (District Court, Stockholm, Sweden). It also applied for an order that Textilis and Mr Keskin, on pain of a penalty, be prohibited, first, from marketing or distributing in any other way to the Swedish public certain designated objects and, second, from using that mark in Sweden for fabrics, cushions and furniture.

In response to those actions, Textilis and Mr Keskin brought before that court a counter-claim for a declaration that the trade mark MANHATTAN is invalid, in that, first, it lacks distinctive character and, second, having regard to the way in which it is used, it is made up of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009.

The Stockholms tingsrätt (District Court, Stockholm) dismissed the counterclaim, inter alia on the grounds that, first, under Article 4 of Regulation No 207/2009, all signs capable of being represented graphically, in particular drawings may be EU trade marks, provided that they have a distinctive character and, second, the mark MANHATTAN is not a shape within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of that regulation.

The Stockholms tingsrätt (District Court, Stockholm) ruled that Textilis and Mr Keskin had infringed the trade mark MANHATTAN and, moreover, had infringed the copyright of which Svenskt Tenn was also the proprietor.

Textilis and Mr Keskin appealed against that judgment before the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Svea Court of Appeal, Patents and Market Court of Appeal, Stockholm), seeking, inter alia, a declaration, on the basis of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009, that the trade mark MANHATTAN is invalid.

In support of their appeal, they argue that a sign consisting of the pattern on a fabric cannot be registered as a trade mark without subverting the principle of the limitation in time of copyright protection. They are of the view that this is why Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 precludes the registration as a trade mark of signs which consist exclusively of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods.

Conversely, Svenskt Tenn contends that signs consisting of the shape of patterns may be registered as EU trade marks, such as the figurative mark MANHATTAN.

The Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Svea Court of Appeal, Patents and Market Court of Appeal, Stockholm) seeks to ascertain whether a figurative mark such as MANHATTAN, which consists of the two-dimensional representation of two-dimensional goods, such as fabric, can be regarded as a shape within the meaning of that provision. It underlines in this respect that it is clear from Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 that the ground for invalidity provided for in that provision applies to three-dimensional and two-dimensional marks representing three-dimensional shapes, such as, for example, the representation of a sculpture or a vase, as held by the EFTA Court, in paragraphs 110 to 115 of its judgment of 6 April 2017, Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights — appeal from the municipality of Oslo (E-05/16), or, as the Court of Justice held in the judgment of 18 June 2002, Philips (C‑299/99, EU:C:2002:377).

It is unsure, however, whether such a ground of invalidity may apply to two-dimensional marks that represent two-dimensional goods, such as, for example, a pattern on a fabric or the reproduction of a painting. In that regard, it observes that it would be paradoxical not to accept such a ground for refusal of registration for such cases, in so far as there is no justification for a difference in treatment between sculpture, which is three-dimensional, and painting, which is two-dimensional.

It states that, unlike the mark at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 12 June 2018, Louboutin and Christian Louboutin (C‑163/16, EU:C:2018:423), which consisted of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe, the figurative mark MANHATTAN at issue in the case pending before it is a work protected by copyright.

It queries whether the amendment of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 by Regulation No 2015/2424, under which registration is refused not only for signs which consist exclusively of ‘the shape’, but also ‘another characteristic of the goods’, which gives substantial value to it, is capable of altering the assessment to be made by virtue of that ground for invalidity. In that regard, it wishes to know whether, in the case before it, Regulation No 207/2009 or Regulation No 207/2009, as amended, taking account of the fact that the date of registration of the mark MANHATTAN, like that of the application for a declaration of invalidity and that of the judgment at first instance under appeal, is prior to 23 March 2016, the date of entry into force of Regulation 2015/2424.

 It states that, in any event and whatever the applicable version of Article 7(1)(e)(iii), if it is accepted that that provision applies to two-dimensional marks representing two-dimensional goods, the question arises as to the criteria for determining whether a sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be regarded as consisting ‘exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods’ where the registration of that sign as a trade mark relates to a number of classes of goods and that the mark is designed in such a manner that it can cover the whole or substantial parts of the goods or be used as a logo.

In that regard, it points out the difficulty in assessing such a ground of invalidity, since the applicant for the trade mark is required only to indicate the goods for which it intends to use the mark and not to specify the practical conditions of use of the sign for which it seeks protection.

Thus, as the case may be, a mark may be affixed to the goods as a whole, like, for example, a furnishing fabric, paper or a tray, so that it becomes a key feature of the goods themselves and, in many of those cases, there is identity between the trade mark and the goods, or it may occupy a minor position on the goods, in particular where the mark is used as a logo.

In the light of those facts, the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Svea Court of Appeal, Patents and Market Court of Appeal, Stockholm) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘1.  Is Article 4 of [Regulation 2015/2424] to be interpreted as meaning that Article 7(1)(e)(iii), in its new wording, is applicable to a court’s assessment of invalidity (under Article 52(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Regulation) that is made after the entry into force of the amendment, namely after 23 March 2016, even if the action concerns a declaration of invalidity where the action was brought before that date and therefore concerns a trademark registered before that date?

2. Is Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of [Regulation No 207/2009], in the version applicable, to be interpreted as meaning that its scope covers a sign which consists of the two-dimensional representation of a two-dimensional product, for example fabric decorated with the sign in question?

3.  If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, according to what principles is the wording ‘signs which consist exclusively of the shape (or another characteristic) which gives substantial value to the goods’ in Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of [Regulation No 207/2009, as amended,] to be interpreted, in a situation where the registration covers a wide range of classes of goods and goods and the sign may be affixed in different ways to the goods? Is the assessment to be made in accordance with more objective/general criteria, for example with the starting point of how the mark appears and how it is possible to affix it to different goods, that is to say without regard to the manner in which the trade mark proprietor may de facto have affixed or may intend to affix the sign to various goods?

The Court’s decision:

1. Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trademark, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to marks registered before the entry into force of Regulation No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation 2015/2424.

2. Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of two-dimensional decorative motifs, which are affixed to goods, such as fabric or paper, does not ‘consist exclusively of the shape’, within the meaning of that provision.

Trademark exhaustion and cosmetics in Milan

pexels-photo-208052.jpegThe Court of Milan ruled in a case regarding trademark infringement and the principle of trademark exhaustion.

The Italian cosmetic producer Landoll S.r.L accused a retailer of infringement of its registered trademarks NASHI and NASHI ARGAN because the retailer wasn’t authorized to sell the products bearing these marks.

The defending argument of the retailer was that it had been selling these products lawfully because of the concept of trademark exhaustion in the EU according to which:

1. An EU trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the European Economic Area under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialization of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.

The Court of Milan, however, disagreed with that argument applying the Coty judgment of the European Court, stating that there was a trademark infringement because in the case at hand Landoll S.r.L had developed a legitimate selective distribution system of authorised dealers in order to ensure maximum consumer satisfaction as a result of the products use. In that way, the cosmetic company tried to safeguard its trademarks value among the consumers.

Source:K&L Gates – Arthur Artinian, Jennifer P.M. Marsh, Francesco Carloni and Gabriela R. Da Costa, Lexology.

Image: kinkate , Pexels.

Marry Me – not in the EU

heart-3698156_960_720.jpgThe General Court of the European Union has recently ruled on a case where the Swiss tech company Marry Me Group tried to register two European trademarks – a work mark MARRY ME and the following figurative sign:

CJ4JX4FZVCC523YA2TMALSKFLH5TSQ342QTDQUBJRERJKLYVSPPLPHARBN6WLBS46KAGSLCIXL6RE.jpg

The trademarks were been applied for the following Nice classes:

9 Communication software; Mobile software; Application software for social networking services via the Internet.

38 Providing access to forums (chat rooms) for social networks; Electronic transmission of messages; Providing online chat rooms for the transmission of messages, comments and multimedia content among users; Online conferencing of greeting cards; Providing access to forums [chat rooms] for public networks.

45 Matching services provided through social networking; Meeting, dating and personal presentation services via the Internet; Personal computer related services.

EUIPO refused to register both of them based on absolute grounds – lack of distinctiveness and descriptiveness. According to the Office MARRY ME can be directly perceived by consumers as a dating service. In regard to the figurative mark, the presence of graphical elements in combination with the word part is not enough to overcome the descriptiveness because of the shape of hearts that plays the opposite effect, it emphasizes, even more, the meaning of the phrase.

Marry Me Group argued that they already had received registration for their trademarks in Germany. However, that was to no avail. EUIPO stressed that when it comes to European trademarks their meaning has to be assessed on every language in the EU. From that perspective, all English speaking consumers will get immediately the meaning of the phrase as it is stated. So the signs will be descriptive.

The Court upheld this decision which is a good example of the practice where undistinctive signs are registered in combination with graphics or other words. Although this is possible, it has to be taken into account the fact that those graphics and words have to be distinctive enough and definitely not to support the meaning of the descriptive parts of the relevant trademark.

Source: WIPR.

Apple lost a lawsuit against Pear in the EU

fruit-2637058_960_720.jpgApple Inc. lost an interesting lawsuit before the General Court of the European Union regarding its famous trademark logo. The case at hand concerns an attempt by the Chinese company Pear Technologies Ltd to register the following European trademark:

download.pngFor classes of goods and services:

 Class 9: ‘Personal computers; laptop computers; handset and tablet mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls and/or any digital data and for use as a handheld computer; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; videophones, video-tablets, pre-recorded computer programs for personal information management, database management software, electronic mail and messaging software, paging software, computer hardware, software and firmware, namely operating system programs, application development computer software programs for personal and handheld computers or handheld mobile digital electronic devices; computer, handheld and mobile handset device peripherals products; parts, fittings and accessories for all the aforesaid goods’;

Class 35: ‘Providing consultancy on digital marketing; providing CRM solution and business solution design services’;

Class 42: ‘Maintenance and updating of computer software; providing information concerning computer software via the internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; computer network services; providing consultancy on networking, webpage design; providing server hosting services; providing domain management services; provision of software applications for handheld, tablets, personal computer and laptop computer devices and data centre management; technical consultancy; all aforesaid services also as business to business and all aforesaid services also as business to consumer or consumers’.

Against this application an opposition was filed by Apple on the ground of its following earlier figurative trademark:

download (1).png

For classes of goods and services:

Class 9: ‘… Computers, tablet computers, computer terminals, computer peripheral devices; computer hardware; … digital music and/or video players; MP3 and other digital format audio players; … handheld and mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls; … computer software for use in connection with online music subscription service, software that enables users to play and program music and entertainment-related audio, video, text and multi-media content, software featuring musical sound recordings, entertainment-related audio, video, text and multi-media content, computer software and firmware for operating system programs, data synchronization programs, and application development tool programs for personal and handheld computers; … computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerised global information networks; electronic handheld devices for the wireless receipt, storage and/or transmission of data and messages, and electronic devices that enable the user to keep track of or manage personal information; software for the redirection of messages, Internet e-mail, and/or other data to one or more electronic handheld devices from a data store on or associated with a personal computer or a server …’;

Class 35: ‘… Retail store and online store services in the field of entertainment featuring music, video, … musical works, pre-recorded audio and audio-visual works and related merchandise, and music related electronic products, via the Internet and other computer, electronic and communications networks …’;

Class 42: ‘… Application service provider (ASP) services featuring software for use in connection with online music subscription service, software that enables users to play and program music and entertainment-related audio, video, text and multimedia content, and software featuring musical sound recordings, entertainment-related audio, video, text and multimedia content; providing temporary internet access to use on-line non-downloadable software to enable users to program, audio, video, text and other multimedia content, including music, concerts, videos, radio, television, news, sports, games, cultural events, and entertainment-related programs …’

Initially, the EUIPO upheld the opposition, the main argument for which was the proved reputation of Apple’s trademark among the consumers in the EU.

In the appeal, however, The General Court annulled this decision stating that EUIPO erred in its assessment. The reasons for this conclusion were that even though Apple’s sign has a reputation, which broadens its protection scope, this can be an argument only in a case that both trademarks are phonetically, visually and conceptually similar.  In the case at hand, this is not true.

  In that regard, it should be noted, first, that it is admittedly true that each of the conflicting marks may be described as using the image of a fruit. However, as all the parties to this action also argue, the mere fact that there is a generic term which includes the terms used to describe the semantic content of the marks at issue is not a relevant factor in the context of the conceptual comparison. In the same vein, it should be borne in mind that the examination of the similarity takes into consideration the conflicting marks as they have been registered or as they have been applied for. Accordingly, it should be observed that the conflicting marks evoke the concept of ‘fruit’ only in an indirect manner. It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 62 and 63 above that the conflicting marks will not be perceived as depicting two unidentifiable fruits, but rather as (i) an apple with a bite taken out of it, possessing a leaf, and (ii) a pear with a stem. In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that the relevant public displaying a high level of attention will use the term ‘fruit’ instead of ‘pear’ or ‘apple’ when referring to the conflicting marks.

  Next, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law cited in paragraphs 22 and 61 above, the comparison of the conflicting marks must be based on the overall impression given by them, by reference to the intrinsic qualities of those marks, and, moreover, conceptual similarity arises from the fact that both marks use images with a similar semantic content. These considerations counter the taking into account of factors such as those mentioned in paragraph 32 of the contested decision, which are not based on the perception of the semantic content of the images used by the conflicting marks, as they have been registered or as they have been applied for, but which are distant from the actual depiction of them. The protection which is granted to an earlier figurative mark does not apply, in the absence of commonalities with the depiction of the mark cited in opposition, to the general category of phenomena that it depicts. The Board of Appeal was therefore wrong to take the view that the marks at issue could be regarded as being conceptually similar on the sole ground that the fruits which they depicted shared several characteristics in real life.

Case T‑215/17, Pear Technologies Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)