General Court rejects Puma beer TM appeal
Puma has suffered a defeat at the EU General Court after the German sportswear manufacturer’s attempt to register a trademark for alcoholic drinks was dismissed.
In the judgment, issued today, October 3 the court backed European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) decision to refuse registration for Puma’s “MG PUMA” mark.
The application was filed in classes 32 and 33 for beer, porter, and other alcoholic beverages.
In 2016, Spanish distiller Destilerías MG filed an opposition based on its earlier figurative mark for “GINMG”, registered in class 33 for “alcoholic beverages, in particular gin and gin-based preparations”.
The EUIPO upheld the opposition, a decision that was subsequently confirmed on appeal.
Puma then took its case to the General Court, which has today ruled that the EUIPO did not err in establishing a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
According to Puma, the EUIPO was incorrect in finding phonetic and visual similarity between the marks. Puma said that members of the public would separate the ‘gin’ and ‘mg’ elements of the Spanish company’s earlier mark; and that ‘MG’ had a low degree of distinctiveness compared to ‘Puma’.
The German sportswear company also argued that the public pays more attention to the beginning of a mark, “ruling out any similarity between the marks at issue”.
According to the General Court, however, the term ‘puma’ had only an “average distinctive character”; the same as the ‘mg’ element of the mark.
“It must therefore be considered that the letters ‘mg’ will be as important as the word ‘puma’ in the relevant public’s perception of the mark applied for,” the ruling said.
The General Court also agreed with the EUIPO’s assessment that there was similarity between the contested marks.
“The fact that the letters ‘mg’ are present in each of those marks is sufficient to establish the existence of phonetic and visual similarity between them, notwithstanding the fact that the position of those letters differs in those marks,” today’s judgment read.
The court ordered Puma 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:
Female inventors double in last 20 years: UKIPO report
