6 month 7 day, The European Union's General Court has ruled against the Spanish chocolate company Locaza (Chocolates Lacasa) An appeal against an entrepreneur from Alicante, The entrepreneur registered the drugstore product "Conguitos" trademark. The General Court upheld the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) The decision of, Refuse General Lekasha "Conguitos" The term is used exclusively for its famous chocolate peanuts. in 2020 years, Rakasha lost a similar case against a children's shoe company.

Mariano．Eskitino (Mariano Esquitino, Province of Alicante) in 2012 years 1 month 9 Submit application by day, Request for classification in Nice 3 class (cosmetics, Cleaning supplies) , The first 14 class (jewel) Sum regulation 18 class (Leather goods) Register on goods and services "Conguitos" Graphic trademark. Rakasha challenged the EU trademark application, And quote "Eu trademark law (EUTMR) " The first 8 article (5) paragraph, The clause protects "Have a reputation" The trademark and prohibit third parties from applying for the same or similar trademark results in unfair exploitation or damage to the reputation of the prior trademark. Rakasha claims, The applicant unfairly took advantage of registration in No 30 class (Candy and chocolate, Especially chocolate peanuts) The reputation of the prior trademark. The opposition department overruled all the objections. 2021 years 3 month 31 day, Rakasha appealed the decision to the European Intellectual Property Office.

EUIPO The Fifth Appeals Board also dismissed the appeal. It indicates, Although the original trademark does have a reputation, But it's limited to chocolate-coated peanuts, It does not have an excellent reputation for allowing the concerned public to make psychological connections between the trademarks of different products.

2022 years 6 month 7 day, Rakasha (appellant) Appeal to the general court, Demand that the decision be rescinded, And declare control 3, 14 and 18 Class of disputed trademarks invalid.

The appellant specifically submits, The appeals board did not consider these signs between "Very close to the same degree of similarity" And the distinctive characteristics of the prior trademark. In addition, Appellant considers that, The point of sale of the two products overlaps, The disputed trademark unfairly takes advantage of the reputation or distinctive features of an earlier trademark.

The common court held that, The appeal board was right to find that the goods in question were not similar. In fact, By its nature, aim, In terms of use methods and sales channels, Chocolate-coated peanuts with disputed trademark No 3, 14 and 18 Different commodities, It is neither complementary nor competitive. In addition, The appeals board said it did consider how similar the signs were, But because the goods vary widely, Even though they may be sold in the same store, The public is also extremely unlikely to make a psychological connection between the two and attribute them to the same source.

Reputation of the original trademark, The common court held that, The Appellant has not shown that the reputation enjoyed by its trademark can be extended to the public of the disputed mark, There is also no indication that the positive qualities of chocolate-coated peanuts can be transferred to goods with the disputed trademark, NJH 3 Class of cleaning preparations or no 4 Class of jewelry.

finally, The court recalled, By case law, In order to benefit "Eu trademark law" The first 8 article (5) The protection provided for in paragraph, The owner of the prior mark must prove it, The use of a later filed trademark may unfairly exploit and cause damage to the earlier trademark. Gaining an unfair advantage from the reputation of an earlier trademark is when a third party uses a trademark that is similar to the earlier trademark, And through this use attempts to place themselves in the space occupied by the prior trademark, In order to draw from it, Benefit from reputation and prestige.

The General Court concluded that, Where there is no connection between the disputed marks, The use of the applied trademark does not unfairly exploit or damage the distinctive features or reputation of the prior trademark. therefore, The court dismissed all the appeals. (Be compiled from intellectual-property-helpdesk. ec. europa. eu)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, 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 us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.