OZZI & CO | Decision 2784034

OPPOSITION DIVISION
OPPOSITION No B 2 784 034
The 2026 Company Pte Ltd, #03-01, 8 Wilkie Road, Wilkie Edge, Singapore
228095, Singapore (opponent), represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau, 31-33
Rue de la Baume, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
Code 2014 Development Corporation S.L., Avinguda Diagonal, 441, 4rt B, 08036
Barcelona, Spain (applicant), represented by March & Asociados, Passeig de
Gràcia, 103, 7ª Planta, 08008 Barcelona, Spain (professional representative).
On 08/11/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 784 034 is rejected in its entirety.
2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.
REASONS
The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of
European Union trade mark application No 15 547 946 , namely against all
the goods in Classes 18 and 25 and some of the services in Class 35. The opposition
is based on European Union trade mark registration No 13 537 592 ‘OZIFY’. The
opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
PRELIMINARY REMARK
As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification),
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU)
2017/1431, subject to certain transitional provisions. All the references in this
decision to the EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR shall be understood as references to
the Regulations currently in force, except where expressly indicated otherwise.
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

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 2 of 11
goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and
dominant elements of the conflicting signs, and the relevant public.
a) The goods and services
The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:
Class 9: Spectacles [glasses]; glasses cases; sun glasses.
Class 18: Brief cases; backpacks; schoolbags; cases for holding keys; credit-card
holders; bags for school; beach bags; handbags, purses and wallets;
articles of luggage; all purpose sport bags; coin holders.
Class 25: Belts (clothing); headgear; footwear; clothing; flip flops.
The contested goods and services are the following:
Class 18: Leather and imitation leather; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling
bags; umbrellas and parasols; walking sticks; whips; saddlery; casual
bags; holdalls; handbags; Boston bags; holdalls; clutch bags; bags for
climbers; bags for campers; beach bags; handbag frames; frames for
umbrellas or parasols; parasols; alpenstocks; sport bags; net bags for
shopping; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging; travel
cases; keycases; attache cases; coin purses, not of precious metal;
boxes made of leather; sling bags for carrying infants; wheeled shopping
bags; boxes made of leather; leatherboard; boxes of vulcanised fibre;
card cases (notecases); wallets; handbags; satchels; vanity cases, not
fitted; collars for animals; dog leashes; laces (leather -); umbrella covers;
covers for horse saddles; haversacks; backpacks; reins; leather thread;
suitcase handles; cane handles; umbrella handles; whips; horse
blankets; furniture coverings of leather; clothing for pets; umbrella rings;
blinkers [harness]; animal harnesses; animal harnesses; harness fittings;
walking stick seats; shoulder belts; straps (leather -); tool bags of leather,
empty; muzzles; horse bridles; head-stalls; leatherboard; straps (leather
-); traveling trunks; shopping bags; straps for soldiers’ equipment;
harness straps; straps of leather [saddlery]; straps for skates; trimmings
of leather for furniture; leather straps; butts [parts of hides]; curried skins;
covers and wraps for animals; stirrups; rubber parts for stirrups; bits for
animals [harness]; reins; carrying cases; moleskin [imitation of leather];
hides; skins of chamois, other than for cleaning purposes; feed bags;
casings, of leather, for springs; knee-pads for horses; riding saddles;
fastenings for saddles; traces (harness); valves of leather.
Class 25: Clothing; footwear; headgear; motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; bibs,
not of paper; headbands [clothing]; bathrobes; bathing suits; caps
[headwear]; bath sandals; boas [necklets]; athletics shoes; beach shoes;
cowls [clothing]; shawls; belts [clothing]; money belts [clothing]; wetsuits
for water-skiing; neckties; corsets; girdles; fur stoles; scarves; caps
[headwear]; caps [headwear]; gloves [clothing]; rainproof clothing;
girdles; underwear; mantillas; stockings; socks; bandanas [neckerchiefs];
furs [clothing]; pyjamas; footwear soles; heels; veils [clothing]; braces for
clothing [suspenders]; layettes [clothing]; shoulder wraps; singlets;
mittens; ear muffs [clothing]; insoles; cuffs; dress shields; beachwear;
lounging robes; overalls; pockets for clothing; sock suspenders; stocking

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 3 of 11
suspenders; petticoats; tights; leotards; aprons [clothing]; costumes;
uniforms; visors [headwear]; wooden shoes; bonnets; coats; espadrilles;
non-slipping devices for footwear; bathrobes; bath shoes; caps
[headwear]; blouses; teddies [undergarments]; berets; footmuffs, not
electrically heated; lace boots; boots; boot uppers; studs for football
boots; booties; fittings of metal for footwear; tips for footwear; heelpieces
for footwear; shirts; shirt yokes; shirt fronts; tee-shirts; short-sleeved t-
shirts; bodices [lingerie]; waistcoats; jackets [clothing]; fishing vests; stuff
jackets [clothing]; slips [undergarments]; ready-to-wear clothing;
detachable collars; shoulder wraps; leather clothing; clothing of imitations
of leather; shower caps; slippers; skirts; trousers; linings (ready-made -)
[parts of clothing]; topcoats; gabardines [clothing]; gymnastic shoes;
jumpers; pullovers; sweaters; liveries; muffs [clothing]; footwear uppers;
pocket squares; parkas; pelerines; pelisses; puttees and gaiters; knitwear
[clothing]; clothing for gymnastics; underwear; sandals; saris; briefs; hats;
wimples; togas; trouser straps; suits; turbans; gowns; slippers; footwear.
Class 35: Retailing of clothing, fashion articles, handbags, articles of leather.
As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR,
goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other
on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice
Classification.
The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter
alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the
sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition
with each other or complementary to each other.
Contested goods in Class 18
Handbags (listed twice); beach bags; sport bags; keycases; wallets; backpacks are
identically contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms).
The contested trunks and travelling bags; travel cases; traveling trunks are included
in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s articles of luggage.
Therefore, they are identical.
The contested holdalls (listed twice) are included in the broad category of, or overlap
with, the opponent’s all purpose sport bags. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested clutch bags; coin purses, not of precious metal are included in the
broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s handbags, purses and wallets.
Therefore, they are identical.
The contested card cases (notecases) overlap with, the opponent’s credit-card
holders, and the contested attache cases overlap with the opponent’s brief cases.
Therefore, they are identical.
The contested satchels are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the
opponent’s schoolbags. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested bags for climbers; bags for campers include as broader categories, or
overlap with, the opponent’s backpacks. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect
ex officio the broad categories of the contested goods, they are considered identical.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 4 of 11
The contested casual bags; Boston bags; haversacks; vanity cases, not fitted; tool
bags of leather, empty; carrying cases; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for
packaging; boxes made of leather (listed twice); boxes of vulcanised fibre are all
items that have the same purpose, namely they are designed for carrying or storing
other objects in. They may be manufactured by the same companies, distributed
through the same commercial channels and target the same relevant consumers as
the opponent’s backpacks; handbags or articles of luggage. Therefore, they are
similar.
The contested net bags for shopping; wheeled shopping bags; shopping bags can
have the same purpose, manufacturers and distribution channels as the opponent’s
articles of luggage. Therefore, they are considered similar to a low degree.
The contested animal skins, hides (listed twice); skins of chamois, other than for
cleaning purposes; butts [parts of hides]; curried skins are raw materials for making
leather. The contested leather and imitation leather; leatherboard (listed twice);
moleskin [imitation of leather] are raw materials for making leather goods. The mere
fact that the contested goods can be used to manufacture the opponent’s goods in
Classes 18 and 25 is not sufficient in itself to establish similarity between them, as
their natures, purposes, relevant publics and distribution channels are usually
distinct. According to case-law, raw materials subject to a transformation process are
essentially different from the finished products that incorporate, or are covered by,
those raw materials, in terms of nature, aim and intended purpose (03/05/2012,
T-270/10, Karra, EU:T:2012:212, § 53). Furthermore, they are not complementary,
since one is manufactured with the other, and raw materials are in general intended
for use in industry rather than for direct purchase by the final consumer (09/04/2014,
T-288/12, Zytel, EU:T:2014:196, § 39-43). They have nothing relevant in common
with the opponent’s goods in Class 9 either. Therefore, they are dissimilar.
The contested umbrellas and parasols (parasols listed twice); walking sticks; whips;
saddlery; handbag frames; frames for umbrellas or parasols; alpenstocks; sling bags
for carrying infants; collars for animals; dog leashes; laces (leather -); umbrella
covers; covers for horse saddles; reins; leather thread; suitcase handles; cane
handles; umbrella handles; whips; horse blankets; furniture coverings of leather;
clothing for pets; umbrella rings; blinkers [harness]; animal harnesses (listed twice);
harness fittings; walking stick seats; shoulder belts; straps (leather -) (listed twice);
muzzles; horse bridles; head-stalls; straps for soldiers’ equipment; harness straps;
straps of leather [saddlery]; straps for skates; trimmings of leather for furniture;
leather straps; covers and wraps for animals; stirrups; rubber parts for stirrups; bits
for animals [harness]; ]; reins; feed bags; casings, of leather, for springs; knee-pads
for horses; riding saddles; fastenings for saddles; traces (harness); valves of leather
are various kinds of goods intended for humans and animals. They have different
natures, purposes and methods of use from those of the opponent’s goods in
Classes 9, 18 and 25, which are glasses, bags and articles of clothing. They do not
usually have the same retail outlets and are not usually made by the same
manufacturers. The fact that these contested goods can be made of the same raw
material as the opponent’s goods (i.e. leather) or that their relevant publics may
coincide to some extent is not sufficient in itself to find similarity between them.
Therefore, they are dissimilar.
Contested goods in Class 25
Clothing; footwear (listed twice); headgear; belts [clothing] are identically contained in
both lists of goods.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 5 of 11
The contested motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; headbands [clothing]; bathing
suits; boas [necklets]; cowls [clothing]; shawls; wetsuits for water-skiing; neckties;
corsets; girdles (listed twice); fur stoles; scarves; gloves [clothing]; rainproof clothing;
underwear; stockings; socks; furs [clothing]; pyjamas; veils [clothing]; braces for
clothing [suspenders]; layettes [clothing]; shoulder wraps; singlets; mittens; ear muffs
[clothing]; cuffs; beachwear; lounging robes; overalls; sock suspenders; stocking
suspenders; petticoats; tights; leotards; aprons [clothing]; costumes; uniforms; coats;
blouses; teddies [undergarments]; footmuffs, not electrically heated; shirts; tee-shirts;
short-sleeved t-shirts; bodices [lingerie]; waistcoats; jackets [clothing]; fishing vests;
stuff jackets [clothing]; slips [undergarments]; ready-to-wear clothing; detachable
collars; shoulder wraps; leather clothing; clothing of imitations of leather; skirts;
trousers; topcoats; gabardines [clothing]; jumpers; pullovers; sweaters; liveries; muffs
[clothing]; parkas; pelerines; pelisses; puttees and gaiters; knitwear [clothing];
clothing for gymnastics; underwear; saris; briefs; togas; suits; gowns are included in
the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s clothing. Therefore, they are
identical.
The contested caps [headwear] (listed four times); visors [headwear]; bonnets;
shower caps; berets; hats; mantillas; turbans; wimples are included in the broad
category of the opponent’s headgear. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested bath sandals; athletics shoes; beach shoes; wooden shoes;
espadrilles; bath shoes; lace boots; boots; booties; slippers; gymnastic shoes;
sandals; slippers are included in the broad category of the opponent’s footwear.
Therefore, they are identical.
The contested money belts [clothing] are included in the broad category of, or
overlap with, the opponent’s belts (clothing). Therefore, they are identical.
The contested bathrobes (listed twice) are loose absorbent robes worn before and
after bathing or as a dressing gown, whose main purpose is to absorb moisture after
a bath; the contested bibs, not of paper are pieces of cloth fastened round a child’s
neck to keep its clothes clean while eating; the contested bandanas [neckerchiefs]
are large handkerchiefs, typically having a colourful pattern, worn tied around the
head or neck; the contested pocket squares are pieces of fabric worn as decorative
additions to a blazer or suit jacket; and the contested trouser straps are fabric or
leather straps worn over the shoulders to hold up trousers. These are various
clothing articles that usually complement other clothing articles. They are considered
similar to the opponent’s clothing, since they can have the same manufacturers,
relevant consumers and distribution channels. Moreover, they may either have the
same method of use or be complementary to each other.
The contested insoles are removable soles worn in a shoe for warmth, as a
deodoriser or to improve the fit; the contested studs for football boots are small
protrusions fixed to the base of football boots to allow wearers to grip the ground.
They can have the same producers, end users and distribution channels as the
opponent’s footwear. Furthermore, these goods are complementary. Therefore, they
are considered similar.
The contested footwear soles; heels; dress shields; pockets for clothing; non-slipping
devices for footwear; boot uppers; fittings of metal for footwear; tips for footwear;
heelpieces for footwear; shirt yokes; shirt fronts; linings (ready-made -) [parts of
clothing]; footwear uppers are parts for clothing and footwear that are usually
intended for undertakings manufacturing the end product, not for the general public.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 6 of 11
They have different purposes, relevant consumers, manufacturers and distribution
channels from the opponent’s goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25. Therefore, they are
dissimilar.
Contested services in Class 35
Retail services in general are not similar to any goods that can be sold at retail. Apart
from being different in nature, given that services are intangible whereas goods are
tangible, they serve different needs. Furthermore, the method of use of those goods
and services is different. They are neither in competition with, nor necessarily
complementary to, each other. However, some degree of similarity can be found
between the retail services of particular goods and those particular goods
(05/05/2015, T-715/13, Castello, EU:T:2015:256, § 33).
Therefore, the contested retailing of clothing, handbags are considered similar to a
low degree to the opponent’s clothing in Class 25 and handbags in Class 18.
Although the nature, purpose and method of use of these goods and services are not
the same, they have some similarities, as they are complementary and the services
are generally offered in the same places where the goods are offered for sale.
Furthermore, they target the same public.
However, the contested retailing of fashion articles and retailing of articles of leather
include, inter alia, retailing of the goods in Classes 18 and 25 that were found to be
dissimilar to the opponent’s goods. Given that the retail services are different in
nature from the opponent’s goods, as services are intangible whereas goods are
tangible, they serve different needs, their methods of use are different and they are
neither in competition with, nor necessarily complementary to, each other, the
contested services are considered dissimilar to the opponent’s goods in Classes 9,
18 and 25.
b) 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 and services found to be identical or similar (to
varying degrees) are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is
considered average.
c) The signs
OZIFY
Earlier trade mark Contested sign

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 7 of 11
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 earlier mark is a word mark, ‘OZIFY’. The word as such conveys no meaning;
however, it cannot be excluded that the relevant consumers, when perceiving a
verbal sign, will break it down into elements that suggest a concrete meaning, or that
resemble words that they already know (13/02/2007, T-256/04, Respicur,
EU:T:2007:46, § 57; 13/02/2008, T-146/06, Aturion, EU:T:2008:33, § 58). For
example, the English-speaking part of the public may recognise the part ‘OZ’ as a
shortened form of ‘Australia’ and the common suffix ‘-IFY’, which is used with
adjectives and nouns to form verbs meaning ‘to cause an increase in the stated
quality or to become’ (information extracted from Cambridge Dictionary on
23/10/2017 at http://dictionary.cambridge.org). Therefore, when taken as a whole, the
word ‘OZIFY’ may be perceived as alluding to goods imbued with an Australian
quality or Australian qualities, and its distinctiveness will be lower than average in
relation to the relevant goods for the part of the public that perceives it in this way.
For the part of the public that perceives the word ‘OZIFY’ as a meaningless word
(e.g. the Spanish-, Romanian-, Czech-, Slovenian- and Hungarian-speaking parts of
the public), the distinctiveness of this word is normal, since it will not be perceived as
describing or alluding to any characteristics of the relevant goods.
The contested sign is a figurative mark, consisting of the word ‘OZZI’, an ampersand
(‘&’) and the abbreviation ‘CO’, written in black slightly stylised upper case letters,
and a figurative element above this verbal element, consisting of part of a circle in a
uniform green colour. A part of the relevant public (e.g. the English-speaking part of
the public) will perceive the word ‘OZZI’ as a male name (which is used in the English
language and derived from Old English). For the remaining part of the public, this
word will be meaningless. In either case, the distinctiveness of the word ‘OZZI’ is
seen as normal. The elements ‘& CO’ will be perceived as ‘and company’, since this
indication is universally used in a commercial context to refer to the company, group
or undertaking producing the goods. Therefore, the relevant public will not pay much
attention to this element and its distinctiveness, if any, is very low. The figurative
element of the contested sign consists of part of a simple geometrical shape in green
and is essentially decorative in nature. Consequently, the word ‘OZZI’ is the most
distinctive element of the contested sign.
Considering the abovementioned possible perceptions of the signs and bearing in
mind that similarities between signs are greater when the commonalities reside in
distinctive elements, the Opposition Division will continue with the assessment of
similarity from the perspective that represents the most advantageous scenario for
the opponent, namely that of the part of the public that will perceive the word ‘OZIFY’,
and the word ‘OZZI’, as meaningless words, each of them having an average degree
of distinctiveness.
The earlier mark is a word mark and, therefore, does not have any element that could
be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.
However, the figurative element of the contested sign, due to its size, position and
colour, clearly stands out in the overall composition and is, therefore, considered the
most dominant (visually eye-catching) element of the contested sign.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 8 of 11
Visually, the signs are similar to the extent that they coincide in their first two letters,
‘OZ’, and the letter ‘I’, which is the third letter of the earlier mark, ‘OZIFY’, and the last
(fourth) letter of the verbal element ‘OZZI’ of the contested sign. However, the signs
differ in all other aspects, namely the last letters, ‘FY’, of the earlier mark, the third
letter, ‘Z’, of the verbal element ‘OZZI’ of the contested sign and the verbal element ‘&
CO’, and the figurative element (including its colour) of the contested sign.
The opponent claims that the signs have similar lengths and almost identical
beginnings, ‘OZI’ and ‘OZZI’, which are major and eye-catching components of the
signs as a result of the unusual use of these sequences at the beginnings of words,
and that consumers will therefore be more likely to focus on the commonalities. In
this regard, while generally the beginnings of words have a greater impact on the
consumer, the specific circumstances of the case may allow a different conclusion to
be drawn (07/05/2009, T-185/07, CK Creaciones Kennya, EU:T:2009:147, § 45). In
the present case, although the first two letters at the beginning of the words ‘OZIFY’
and ‘OZZI’ are the same and the signs also have the letter ‘I’ in common (albeit in
different positions), the different ending ‘FY’ of the earlier mark and the striking
double letters ‘ZZ’ in the middle of the most distinctive element of the contested sign
create clearly perceptible visual differences between them. Moreover, account must
also be taken of the fact that the only distinctive element of the contested sign,
‘OZZI’, is a rather short word which will be perceived immediately and in its entirety
by the relevant public. Consequently, the public will be able to more easily perceive
all its individual elements and will notice the differences between the word ‘OZZI’ and
the earlier mark, ‘OZIFY’.
Moreover, the contested sign also has additional verbal and figurative elements that,
although weak, are not negligible in the overall visual composition of the mark and
will create additional visual differences from the earlier mark, especially considering
the striking and dominant nature of the figurative element.
Considering all the above, the visual impression created by the contested sign has
clearly perceptible differences from that created by the earlier mark and, therefore,
the signs are considered visually similar to a lower than average degree.
Aurally, irrespective of the different pronunciation rules in different parts of the
relevant territory, the first three letters ‘OZI’ of the earlier mark and the distinctive
element ‘OZZI’ of the contested mark will be pronounced in either the same way or
similar ways by the relevant public. However, the pronunciation of the signs clearly
differs in the sound of the last letters, ‘FY’, of the earlier mark versus the ending ‘&
CO’ of the contested sign. The figurative element of the contested sign will not be
referred to orally by the relevant public.
Although, as correctly stated by the opponent, the pronunciation of the signs will
coincide, for at least a part of the public, in their first two syllables, namely /O-ZI/, the
fact that the earlier mark will be pronounced as three syllables, /O-ZI-FY/, whereas
the distinctive element of the contested sign as two, as well as the striking aural
difference in the pronunciation of the third syllable, /FY/, of the earlier mark, will
create different rhythms and intonations, and will certainly be noticed by the relevant
consumers.
In addition, the pronunciation of the contested sign differs in the sound of the
ampersand, which will be pronounced as the word ‘and’ in the relevant languages,
and in the sound of the letters ‘CO’, which will be pronounced either as such or as
the word ‘company’. Although the element ‘& CO’ is considered very weak (if not non-

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 9 of 11
distinctive), it is clearly perceptible and will probably be pronounced by the relevant
consumers.
Since it cannot be generally assumed that consumers would remember the similar
elements of the marks better than their differing elements, the signs are considered
aurally similar to an average degree.
Conceptually, neither the earlier mark, ‘OZIFY’, nor the distinctive element ‘OZZI’ of
the contested mark has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory. Although the
verbal element ‘& CO’ of the contested sign will evoke a concept (as explained
above), considering the weight attributed to this element, the attention of the relevant
public will not be attracted to it and it therefore does not result in a conceptual
difference between the marks. Since the additional dominant, but decorative,
figurative element of the contested sign will not convey any concept, a conceptual
comparison is not considered possible, and 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.
d) 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.
The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue
of intensive use or reputation.
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 any of 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.
e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
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/or
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).
As concluded above, the contested goods and services are partly identical, partly
similar (to varying degrees) and partly dissimilar to the opponent’s goods, and they
target the public at large with an average degree of attention. The degree of
distinctiveness of the earlier mark is average.
The earlier mark and the contested sign are similar insofar as they have the same
first two letters ‘OZ’ and the letter ‘I’, albeit in a different position. However, as
explained in detail in section c), these commonalities can only lead to a finding of a
lower than average degree of visual similarity and an average degree of aural
similarity.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 10 of 11
Furthermore, the goods themselves are fairly ordinary consumer products. The
degree of aural similarity between the two marks is of less importance for goods that
are marketed in such a way that, when making a purchase, the relevant public
usually perceives the mark designating those goods visually, as is the case for the
goods at issue that have been considered identical or similar. Generally in clothes,
shoe or leather goods shops customers can themselves either choose the item they
wish to buy or be assisted by the sales staff. Whilst oral communication in respect of
the product and the trade mark is not excluded, the choice of the item is generally
made visually. Consequently, the visual perception of the marks in question will
generally take place prior to purchase. Accordingly the visual aspect plays a greater
role in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion (06/10/2004, T-117/03 –
T-119/03 & T-171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 50). The same is true of the related
services, which have the purpose of selling those goods. As the distinctive element of
the contested sign is a rather short word, ‘OZZI’, the considerable visual differences
between the signs caused by the striking nature of the letters ‘ZZ’ in this word and the
ending, ‘FY’, of the earlier mark, as well as by the dominant and visually eye-catching
figurative element of the contested sign, are particularly relevant when assessing the
likelihood of confusion between them.
Considering the above and the fact that the signs do not have any conceptual link
that would lead the public to associate them with each other, it can be concluded that
the differences between the marks are sufficiently striking to counteract the
similarities that arise from their first two letters, ‘OZ’, and the coinciding letter ‘I’.
Therefore, the possibility of likelihood of confusion, including likelihood of association,
can safely be excluded, even in relation to the identical goods.
The opponent refers to the Board of Appeal decision of 15/09/2008, R 1404/2007-2,
FAY & CO / FAY, and the opposition decisions of 02/03/2015, B 2 351 933, NOXER /
NOX OFF and 28/10/2004, B 541 476, UBISHOP, ubifree / UBI-Q, to support its
arguments. However, in the Board of Appeal decision referred to by the opponent,
the verbal element, ‘FAY’, of the contested sign is identical to the most distinctive
element of the earlier mark, whereas in the present case there are significant
differences between the earlier mark and the most distinctive verbal element of the
contested sign. In the opposition decisions cited by the opponent, the contested sign
either reproduced the majority of the letters of the opponent’s mark in the same
order, or the marks fully coincided in their most distinctive elements. Neither of these
scenarios is fully applicable to the present case. In view of the above, it follows that
even if the decisions referred to by the opponent are to some extent similar to the
present case, the outcome will not necessarily be the same.
Moreover, 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).
Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is no likelihood of
confusion on the part of the public.
For the sake of completeness, the Opposition Division points out that there is no
need to compare the signs for the part of the public that will perceive the
abovementioned meanings of the words ‘OZIFY’ in the earlier mark and ‘OZZI’ in the
contested sign. If there is no likelihood of confusion for those consumers who do not
perceive any meaning in these words, a fortiori there is no likelihood of confusion for

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 11 of 11
those consumers who perceive them as meaningful, since, first, the earlier mark and
the contested sign will not be conceptually similar and, second, the earlier mark,
‘OZIFY’, will have a lower than average degree of distinctiveness for this part of the
public. Since these two factors would make likelihood of confusion even less likely,
the outcome of the present decision would not be different.
Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.
COSTS
According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must
bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.
Since the opponent is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the
applicant in the course of these proceedings.
According to Article 109(7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR (former Rule 94(3)
and Rule 94(7)(d)(ii) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the costs to be paid to the
applicant are the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the
maximum rate set therein.
The Opposition Division
Janja FELC Rasa BARAKAUSKIENE Judit NÉMETH
According to Article 67 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a
right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 68 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 for
appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be
deemed to have been 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 Article 109(8) EUTMR
(former Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), such a request must be
filed within one month of the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be
deemed to have been filed only when the review fee of EUR 100
(Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.

Leave Comment