OPPOSITION No B 2 702 887

E. & J. Gallo Winery, 600 Yosemite Boulevard, Modesto, California 95354, United States of America (opponent), represented by Bomhard IP, S.L., C/Bilbao, 1, 5º, 03001 Alicante, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Contri Spumanti S.P.A., Via Legnaghi Corradini 30/A, 37030 Cazzano di Tramigna,  (VR)  Italy (applicant), represented by Mondial Marchi S.R.L., Via Olindo Malagodi 1, 44042 Cento (FE), Italy (professional representative).

On 23/08/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 702 887 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 15 098 437 is rejected in its entirety.

3.        The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 620.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 098 437 ‘APOTHEOSIS’. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 10 768 241 ‘APOTHIC’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) EUTMR.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs and the relevant public.

1. The goods

The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers).

The contested goods are the following:

Class 33: Wine.

The contested wine is included in the broad category of the opponent’s goods alcoholic beverages, and is therefore identical.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods found to be identical are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is average.

3. The signs

APOTHIC	APOTHEOSIS
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).

The marks are word marks.

The unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C-514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

The element APOTHEOSIS of the contested sign means ‘glorification of a person or thing, a glorified ideal, the best or greatest time or event’ (www.collinsdictionary.com, 08/08/17) in English. Moreover, as pointed out by the applicant, it will be understood by the Italian, Spanish, German, Greek, French, Swedish, Portuguese or Polish speaking public in the relevant territory, because similar words exist in these languages. However, this term is not meaningful for other part of the public, such as for the Hungarian-speaking public. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the Hungarian-speaking part of the public for which the element APOTHEOSIS has no meaning and is distinctive.

The element APOTHIC of the earlier mark, contrary to the arguments of the opponent, has no meaning for the relevant public and is, therefore, distinctive.

It is also noted, that the consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader, as in the present case.

Visually, the signs coincide in their first five letters APOTH. However, the marks differ in the remaining letters IC/EOSIS placed at their endings.

Therefore, the signs are visually similar to an average degree.

Aurally, irrespective of the different pronunciation rules in different parts of the relevant territory, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters APOTH placed in the beginning of the signs. The pronunciation differs in the in the sound of the letters IC/EOSIS.

Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territories. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

According to the opponent, the earlier mark has been extensively used and enjoys an enhanced scope of protection. However, for reasons of procedural economy, the evidence filed by the opponent to prove this claim does not have to be assessed in the present case (see below in ‘Global assessment’).

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for the goods in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods have been found to be identical. The similarities and dissimilarities between the signs have been established.

The signs have been found to be visually and aurally similar to the extent that they share the letters APOTH. The differentiating letters are placed at the end of the signs. The marks can be easily mistaken by public when seen or pronounced as the similarities are not sufficiently outweighed by dissimilarities that would help the consumers to distinguish between the marks.

Furthermore, evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C 39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17). In the present case, an average degree of similarity between the signs is reinforced by the identity of the goods and outweighs also the applicant’s arguments about the different length and number of syllables in the signs.

Account should also be taken of the fact that the average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks and must place his trust in the imperfect picture of them that he has kept in his mind (judgment of 22/06/1999, C-342/97, ‘Lloyd’).

Based on the principles of interdependence and imperfect recollection, it is considered that the similarities between the signs established above are sufficient to cause at least part of the public to believe that the conflicting goods, which are identical, come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings.

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the relevant goods are alcoholic beverages and, since these are frequently ordered in noisy establishments (bars, restaurants, nightclubs), the phonetic similarity between the signs is particularly relevant (see judgment of 15/01/2003, T-99/01, Mystery, EU:T:2003:7, § 48, which reflects this line of reasoning). In the present case the marks share their beginnings and are therefore aurally similar, having only a difference in their endings.

The applicant refers to previous decisions of the Office to support its arguments. However, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions as each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities.

This practice has been fully supported by the General Court, which stated that, according to settled case-law, the legality of decisions is to be assessed purely with reference to the EUTMR, and not to the Office’s practice in earlier decisions (30/06/2004, T-281/02, Mehr für Ihr Geld, EU:T:2004:198).

While the Office does have a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration, the way in which these principles are applied must be consistent with respect to legality. It must also be emphasised that each case must be examined on its own individual merits. The outcome of any particular case will depend on specific criteria applicable to the facts of that particular case, including, for example, the parties’ assertions, arguments and submissions. Finally, a party in proceedings before the Office may not rely on, or use to its own advantage, a possible unlawful act committed for the benefit of some third party in order to secure an identical decision.

In view of the above, it follows that, even if the previous decisions submitted to the Opposition Division are to some extent factually similar to the present case, the outcome may not be the same as is the case here.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Hungarian-speaking part of the public. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 10 768 241. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

Since the opposition is successful on the basis of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is no need to assess the enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing mark due to its reputation as claimed by the opponent. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.

COSTS

According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

Since the applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.

According to Rule 94(3) and (6) and Rule 94(7)(d)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Zuzanna STOJKOWICZ

Erkki MÜNTER

Marianna KONDÁS

According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.

The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Opposition Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month from the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.