Nissan loses challenge to ‘E-Power’ mark
The EU General Court has dismissed an appeal from Nissan challenging the registration of a word sign from Netherland’s manufacturing company VDL Groep.
The court held that, while the word sign “VDL E-POWER” is “visually, phonetically and conceptually” similar to Nissan’s pre-existing “E-Power” trademarks, the inclusion of “VDL” in the sign made the two marks distinct.
The court also found that the common phrase between Nissan and VDL’s marks, “E-Power”, had a “low degree of distinctiveness”.
As a result, the General Court ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion between VDL’s word sign and Nissan’s prior marks, dismissing Nissan’s action and ordering the car giant to bear its own costs.
The judgment was handed down on Wednesday, November 10.
Board’s analysis
While broadly agreeing with a prior decision from the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) Board of Appeal that there was no likelihood of confusion between Nissan and VDL’s marks, the General Court claimed that the board erred in not defining the degree of “conceptual similarity” between the conflicting signs as “low”.
The judgment said: “As for the element ‘VDL’ of the mark applied for, whether perceived by the relevant public as a reference to the intervener’s company name or devoid of all meaning, that element is not present in the earlier marks.
“On account of the higher degree of distinctiveness of that element than of the element ‘E-Power’, it must be found that the conflicting signs, taken as a whole, have, at most, a low degree of conceptual similarity.”
Case background
VDL filed to register the word sign in May 2018 under Classes 7,9 and 12 of the Nice Agreement, which generally covers engines, motors, and electric vehicles.
Nissan filed a notice of opposition to the registration based on two of its earlier trademarks in classes 9 and 12 for “E-Power”.
The EUIPO upheld Nissan’s opposition based on the “E-Power” mark and refused VDL’s word sign registration.
VDL appealed the opposition division’s decision to the board of appeal at the EUIPO, which annulled the verdict, claiming that the inclusion of “VDL” in the mark applied for differentiated the conflicting signs, meaning there was no likelihood of confusion. The board of appeal agreed.
Nissan then appealed this decision to the EU General Court, holding again that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks and the word sign.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk