Editor's note: recently, Eu general court (EU General Court) alignment T-465/16 The case was adjudicated. The case involves two Spanish companies: Cotécnica, SCCL. with Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL. right "OPTIMA" A dispute over the use of the logo. Whether the case is coming to a conclusion? Please follow the Xiaobian below! The General Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the element contained "OPTIMA" Confusion between two graphic trademarks may be determined simultaneously, Given its position and size in the trademark, Identify words that lack significant distinction "OPTIMA" Other elements appearing in graphic trademarks are not considered in the judgment of the General Court of the European Union "Cotécnica" and "Visán" To reduce the possibility of confusion or association between two trademarks [Disputed fact]

recently, Eu general court (EU General Court) alignment T-465/16 The case was adjudicated. The case involves two Spanish companies: Cotécnica, SCCL. (Hereinafter referred to as "Cotécnica" ) with Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL. (Hereinafter referred to as "Visán" ) right "OPTIMA" A dispute over the use of the logo. Cotécnica Application for registration of the figure shown in Figure 1 as an EU trademark, Specify use in the No 31 Class goods "Animal and livestock feed" on. (Figure 1) Visán Based on its two registered EU trademarks——One is a graphic trademark (Figure 2) , Specify use in the No 31 Class goods "Animal and livestock feed" And several other types of goods and services; The other is a word trademark "OPTIMANOVA" , Specify use in the No 31 Class goods "Animal and livestock feed" And several other types of goods and services——Objection to the above EU trademark application. (Figure 2) [Dissent proceedings and appeals against dissenting decisions] European Union Intellectual Property Office (EU Intellectual Property Office) After the objection Department accepts the objection application, Determined by examination Visán An objection based on its graphic trademark shall be established. Cotécnica Appeal against the dissenting decision. The appeal panel of the EU Intellectual Property Office rejected the appeal, Equally determined Visán The objection raised by reference to the graphic trademark is established.

In the opinion of the Appeal Board: Two conflicting trademarks are designated for use on similar goods; The alphabetic element that forms the body of a trademark by occupying the dominant position and larger proportions in both trademarks "OPTIMA" , Lack of salience; The background of two graphic logos (They are pure black squares and red rectangles) It is only a minor decorative element for consumers; It appears in the trademark "Cotécnica" and "Visán" Because of its small size, It won't be noticed. [Judgment of the General Court of the European Union] Cotécnica Appeal against the decision of the appeal Board, Appeal to the EU's General Court of Justice. The EU General Court ruling upheld the decision of the EU Intellectual Property Office and the Appeal Board, Dismiss an appeal. The dissenting claim has been upheld in the three procedures from the dissenting procedure to the appellate decision, It certainly represents a sweeping victory for the dissidents. But for the purposes of the next discussion, The case still seems open to argument. Judgments of the General Court of the European Union (And decisions of the EU Intellectual Property Office's Dissent Division and Appeal Board) Other elements of conflicting trademarks are not considered "Cotécnica" and "Visán" Function of. Although their size in the logo is greater than the main element "OPTIMA" small, But it actually still helps to reduce the confusion between the two trademarks, Especially the possibility of association. Because they are open elements in conflicting trademarks, And because they constitute the main name of the owner of the conflicting trademark, they are sufficiently distinguishable. Can be said to, The case was not as clear-cut as the two appeals courts had hoped (If the person against the decision of the general Court of the European Union, An appeal can still be made to the EU Court of Justice) . As we all know, "Similar categories of goods or services" and "Identification similarity" , Be applicable "Eu trade mark regulation" The first 8 article 1 paragraph (b) The key elements, A judgment should determine whether there is a possibility of confusion or association between conflicting marks.

however, In this case, Even if the identification is identified as similar and specified for use on similar goods or services, I don't know for sure "Potential for confusion" Conclusion of. Although relevant "word 'OPTIMA' The main elements that constitute a conflicting trademark, And the two trademarks are similar on the whole" The ruling was correct, but, Outside of word elements that are not clearly distinguishable, After adding the main name of the trademark owner, It is still possible to conclude "There is no possibility of confusion or association between the two trademarks" Conclusion of. Conflicting trademarks have the owners' names added, Even if the size is small, It's still legible. When similar "OPTIMA (Spanish "The best" ) " , "MAXIMA (most) " or "SUPER (Very good) " Such adjectives are used in trademark identification, The average consumer will focus on other elements of the logo. If the "Other elements" Not a generic word but a name, It is easy to associate this name element with the manufacturer or distributor of the product. This is important for the decision in this case, Because of the conflict with the main elements of the trademark "OPTIMA" , It's easy to think of generic words "OPTIMO" (mean "The best" ) . But in the end, The General Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it does not exist in several EU member languages "OPTIMA" word, Can't understand the meaning.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property contact us: beijing@elzaburu. es, 3107429780 (QQ) , ELZABURU-BJ (wechat)