2023years11month, The General Court of the European Union against Nivea (Nivea) submitted "Nivea Skin-Identical Q10" Trademark application with existing registered trademark "SkinIdent" The question of whether there would be confusion was considered.

Specifically speaking, In last year's11month8day, The EU General Court in the existing "SkinIdent" The owner of a registered trademark is concerned with his prior rights "Nivea Skin-Identical Q10" The possibility of confusion between the two was examined after the trademark application was challenged.

In short, The court held that: "Nivea" This element dominates trademark applications; As a whole, In the prior trademark "SkinIdent" Element is a made-up term, There is no specific meaning in the relevant consumer group.

The background to the decision on the likelihood of confusion

2019years3month, Beiersdorf AG (Beiersdorf) Applied for the registration of the EU trademark "Nivea Skin-Identical Q10" , And apply it to No3Class product (Non-pharmaceutical preparations and cosmetics for body care and beauty) . SkinIdent AGThe company is in2019years8Month based on what it owns "SkinIdent" The prior right has objected to the above application, Which involves German "SkinIdent" mark (The registration time is2003years5month16day, Suitable for regulation3class "cosmetics" ) , International trademark "SkinIdent" (The registration time is2003years8month28day, The application designates several EU member States, Parallel involving control3class "cosmetics" ) And the name of the company "SkinIdent" (The company develops and distributes beauty products in Germany, Cosmetics and consumer products related to the field of beauty products and cosmetics／The name is used in the luxury process) .

The above objection is requested in2021years7month1The day was rejected, whileSkinIdentImmediately to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Filed an appeal. 2022years8month18day, EUIPOThe Fifth Appeal Board of the United States again rejected the appeal request, It is pointed out that there is no possibility of confusion between the signs involved.

At the same time, The Appeals Board also finds that, No confusion will be created between the company name of the requesting party and the trademark application in question, Because the difference between them is enough to eliminate similar "It will interfere with the function of identification and differentiation of prior rights" Risk of. therefore, SkinIdentThe company has appealed to the European Union's General Court.

The General Court of the European Union adjudicates on the possibility of confusion

When comparing the signs involved, The General Court of the European Union has broken down the above symbols, To determine if there is a real possibility of confusion.

First of all, The party making the appeal argued, "Skin-Identical" The term has a unique and autonomous status in the other party's trademark, Therefore, in assessing whether there is a possibility of confusion between related marks, People are not supposed to "Undisputed well-known elementsNivea" And those used to describe the goods specified by the mark "Q10" Take elements into consideration. In addition, Due to the trademark application "Skin" with "Identical" The hyphen between them is also not distinctive, Therefore, this does not reflect the visual and phonetic differences from the previous trademark.

SkinIdentThe company also argues, For Greece, Cyprus or Hungary, And possibly Finland's non-native English speaking public, "Identical" The word seems to have been invented. however, The Appeals Board did not consider this segment of the population in its review. therefore, SkinIdentThe review carried out by the Committee was considered incomplete, And made a mistake in making that assessment, That is, the committee believes that a significant portion of the public will "Identical" The meaning of this element is understood as "The exact same thing" .

On the other hand, The court held that, withSkinIdentThe opposite is suggested, In assessing the similarity between two marks, it is not possible to consider only one part of a composite mark and compare it with another. In other words, As long as all the other components of the trademark can be ignored without timing, One can assess similarity only on the basis of the dominant elements. No matter what, Due to the addition of hyphens and "ical" The end of the word, element "Skin-Identical" with "SkinIdent" It can be clearly distinguished.

At the same time, "Nivea" This element is also very important, Because it was at the beginning of the trademark application, And dominate the overall impression of the logo. In addition, Nor can the presence of a hyphen be considered irrelevant, Because this punctuation mark will cause the concerned public to "Skin-Identical" This lexical element is broken down into two distinct terms, Regardless of how the public perceives these terms.

meanwhile, The court also stated that, SkinIdentThe company's prior rights are governed by "SkinIdent" Of this single element, As a whole, It's a made-up term, It has no specific meaning in the minds of the relevant public. petitioning "Skin-Identical" The term is made up of two different terms, Each of these terms has a clear and specific meaning in the minds of most of the people concerned.

In view of the above, The court held that, One can only look at the trademark application as a whole, This is irrelevant to the public's understanding of each of these components. therefore, The court reached a conclusion, The appeal board's decision was correct, namely "Nivea" Elements dominate the trademark application in question, The previous trademark forms a homogenized whole (That is, you can't put one of them "Skin" and "Ident" Element separation) . evident, This is in line with the application "Skin-Identical" The elements are in stark contrast. therefore, The court eventually dismissed the appeal. (Be compiled fromwww. mondaq. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wu Xian



　　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.