For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Wednesday, 11 May 2005

IT'S NOT IN ENGLISH ...


... Czech, Hungarian or Maltese, but it's made its way into all the other official languages of the European Union. The IPKat is of course referring to Case T-31/03 Grupo Sado SA v OHIM, Sadia SA. It looks to him like a "likelihood of confusion" opposition. The applicant's mark is on the left and the opponent's is on the right.

.
Both parties deal in goods and services in Classes 29, 31 and 35.

Flaunting his fluent command of Latvian, the IPKat can tell you that the court first decided to "prasību noraidīt"; then, to be on the safe side, it also "prasītāja atlīdzina tiesāšanās izdevumus". Merpel says "Who are you kidding, fat cat? All you can speak is English and Purr-sian. But if the Curia website won't give us the ruling in English, perhaps some kind Latvian (or Greek or Portuguese) would be so kind as to explain ..."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The appeal was dismissed since no likelihood of confussion was present among the marks, notwithstanding the identity of goods in class 29.

An avid IPKat fan.

Le Tigga said...

Kitty
It's an opposition case. As you can imagine, appeal on the basis that the marks were not similar and that the BoA didn't take into account the meaning of the mark in Portuguese and the effect of the word GRUPO.

CFI said that meaning in Portuguese (meaning 'health') not relevant as had to consider the average Spaniard, who wouldn't necessarily understand the
meaning. Also found that the word GRUPO had very little effect and
that SADA/SADIA were similar phonetically and visually. Given the identity of the goods, there was a likelihood of confusion.
Hope this helps.

Jeremy said...

Thanks, to both of you, for your clarifications. We really appreciate it when people post comments.

Anonymous said...

A probably sloppy translation, from the Dutch version,of the more important considerations of the Court.

54. Moreover it is plausible that the consumer will not remember the term "grupo". The consumer will take this term exclusively generic, i.e. as a term that indicates a group of companies. The consumer therefore will not remember the term "grupo" as principal component of the requested mark and as a component that indicates the origin of the goods and services.

57 The graphic component of the requested mark indeed draws attention through its size, but this graphic reproduction is hard to remember and will, consequently, not dominate the impression of the requested mark left behind in the memory of relevant public.

69 Considering the fact that the marks indicated by the conflicting marks are identical, as well as that the dominant component of the requested mark is visually and phonetically similar to the older mark, the global impression made by the conflicting marks will cause the relevant public to think that the goods identified with the marks originate of the same venture, at least of economically linked ventures.

Apart from that, the component "grupo" of the requested mark, which indicates a group of companies, can, although it is not dominant, nevertheless create the impression of an association of the companies concerned, in the form of a "group" of companies, and can therewith increase the danger of confusion between the conflicting marks.

Anonymous said...

http://curia.eu.int/en/instit/services/traduction/recrutement.htm

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':