Balev Eood's trademark for an aircraft body was opposed by Julius Sämann Ltd, who argued it was confusingly similar to Julius Sämann's trademark protection for Little Trees/Wunderbaum air fresheners.
By way of administrative proceedings, Julius Sämann Ltd opposed the registration of Balev Eood’s trademark (the applicant) for an aircraft body (device) and argued that it was confusingly similar to its established trademark protection for Little Trees/Wunderbaum air fresheners.
The Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) was not convinced by Julius Sämann’s arguments and the registration for the aircraft mark was upheld. The proprietor of the Little Trees/Wunderbaum marks went on to file an appeal against NIPO first instance decision, bringing the case to the Board of Appeal. T
he Board of Appeal upheld the first division decision and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion, contrary to Julius Sämann’s claim. The dispute was then taken to court. Proceedings took place in June and a court decision was recently rendered.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on email@example.com.
Balev Eood, Wunderbaum, similar trademarks, NIPO, Julius Samann Ltd, air fresheners