EU court sides with EUIPO’s ventilation TM decision
German company Maico lost a trademark opposition case at the EU General Court today, with the court dismissing its appeal against a European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) decision.
Denmark-based Eico applied to register ‘Eico’ as a European trademark, covering class 11 goods such as apparatus for lighting and extractor hoods, in February 2015.
But Maico, a specialist in fans and ventilation solutions, opposed the trademark for certain goods, namely apparatus for heating, refrigerating, drying, and ventilating.
Maico’s trademark ‘Maico’ (covering class 11 goods) was used in opposition.
In October 2016, the EUIPO’s Opposition Division dismissed Maico’s opposition.
Although Maico appealed against the decision, the German company’s arguments were dismissed by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
The appeal board found that the goods were intended as much for the general public as for business customers and that the level of attention of the general public was high.
It concluded that the visual and phonetic differences between the signs at issue outweighed their similarities, meaning there was no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks.
Again, Maico appealed against the decision, and the General Court handed down its ruling today.
Maico raised a single plea, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, as the public’s level of attention is lower than the board concluded and the signs are highly similar in visual and phonetic terms.
Turning to the level of attention, the court said that because of the nature of the goods—“their durable, expensive and technical nature in particular”—consumers will display a high level of attention when buying them.
Siding with the appeal board, the court said: “The objective characteristics of the goods in question, which are essentially apparatus for heating, air conditioning, ventilating and plumbing, mean that the average consumer will purchase them only after careful examination, irrespective of the fact that he will use those goods regularly following their purchase and subsequent installation.”
On visual similarity, the court found that although the differences between the trademarks are slight, they were sufficient for the signs to convey different overall impressions.
While four of the letters were in an identical sequence in both marks, the presence of the letter ‘M’ at the beginning of the ‘Maico’ trademark creates the first syllable ‘Mai’, which differs from the first syllable of the ‘Eico’ mark. Because of this, the court found there was no phonetic similarity.
The court added: “Consequently, the Board of Appeal did not err in finding, in the context of a global assessment, that in the light of the differences between the signs at issue and the relevant public’s level of attention, there was no likelihood of confusion.”
The case was dismissed and Maico was ordered to pay costs.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories
Microsoft victorious in mobile software IPR
Marques 2018: BMW counsel praises UDRP
Marques 2018: Nestlé and Red Bull talk marketing and designs
Marques 2018: Motion marks and marching ducks
Virgin takes on ‘fictitious’ entity for trademark infringement
