Audio equipment manufacturer Zoom KK Failed to convince the EU's General Court of facial recognition companies Facetec the "Zoom" The trademark infringes on its predecessor trademark.

6 month 30 day, The second Chamber of the European Court of General Justice ruled against JD Zoom KK prosecute, The ruling said that although the trademarks involved were in the Nice classification No 9 Class registration, but Zoom KK The possibility of confusion has not been demonstrated.

The court also stated that, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) The appeals Board was not wrong in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion. Background biometrics in Las Vegas Facetec in 2016 years 10 Lunar direction EUIPO Put forward "Zoom" Trademark application, involve "Security software that allows users to protect and access mobile devices through multidimensional facial recognition" . Zoom KK File an objection to the application, Said it violated them 1999 Year registered at No 9 Class sum control 15 Class of EU word trademarks "Zoom" .

EUIPO Both the dissenting division and the appeals Board rejected it Zoom KK objection, hence Zoom KK Take the case to the EU's General Court of Justice. The possibility of confusion is in ordinary court proceedings, Zoom KK Objecting to the decision of the appeal Board.

Zoom KK Said the trademarks involved were similar, Because both of them cover the No 9 quasi- "Downloadable computer program" , and EUIPO Error in comparing trademark related goods to determine likelihood of confusion. EUIPO and Facetec admit 2 A trademark does relate to software, But they are intended for different goods, Zoom KK s trademark relates to recording equipment, while Facetec s trademark relates to facial recognition software.

The general court held that, EUIPO In comparison 2 There was no mistake in the trademark, It also supported the appeals board's view, That is, the difference in intended use reduces the likelihood of confusion. The court said: "Therefore it must be recognized that, As long as the intended purpose of the goods is accurately stated to some extent, It helps to distinguish them, Beyond the common nature of software. " Trademark comparison is in the eyes of the trademark, In terms of phonetic or conceptual similarity, General court consent EUIPO , Trademark in question "Virtually the same" , The only distinguishing factor is the stylization of the font.

The court said, The finding and dismissal Zoom KK The determination of the infringement claim is not in conflict. The court agreed EUIPO Decision of——Except for the related goods, "Zoom" The lower-than-average significance of trademarks also does not indicate the possibility of confusion.

(Compiled from www. worldipreview. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.