OPPOSITION No B 2 755 067

Medion AG, Am Zehnthof 77, 45307 Essen, Germany (opponent), represented by Becker & Müller, Turmstr. 22, 40878 Ratingen, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Peraglia Group SL, C/ Muntaner, Num.262, P.6, 08021, Barcelona, Spain (applicant), represented by Durán-Corretjer S.L.P., Còrsega, 329 (Pº de Gracia/Diagonal), 08037, Barcelona, Spain (professional representative).

On 26/07/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 755 067 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 15 436 711 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 15 436 711. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 4 585 295. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) 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 and services

The goods on which the opposition is based are, inter alia, the following:

Class 9:        Magnetic encoders; magnetic data carriers; optical data media; data-processing apparatus; optical character readers; writing and/or reading implements (data processing); magnetic data carriers; mouse (data processing equipment); optical data carriers; disc exchangers (for computers); scanners [data processing equipment]; memories for data processing installations, processors (central processing units); compact discs (read-only memory); compact discs (audio-video); computers; recorded computer programs; computer software [recorded]; games programs for computers; computer operating programs (recorded); computer peripheral devices; computer programs (downloadable); computer keyboards; printers for use with computers; wrist rests for use with computers; interfaces [for computers]; laptops (computers); floppy disc drives; monitors for computers; monitors (computer hardware), navigation apparatus (computer programs) for vehicles (onboard computers); notebooks (computers); computer peripheral devices; computer programs; computer software (recorded); computer game programs; keyboards for computers; make-up removing appliances, electric; grids for electric accumulators, chargers for electric accumulators, plates for electric accumulators, electric accumulators; alarm bells, electric; connection boxes (electricity), display apparatus (electric); electronic display panels; batteries, electric; flat irons, electric; theft prevention installations, electric; electric wires; electrodynamic apparatus for the remote control of railway points; electric cables; electric capacitors; electromagnetic coils; electronic publications [downloadable]; electronic pens [visual display units]; discharge tubes, electric, other than for lighting; anti-interference devices (electricity); batteries, electric, for vehicles; electrodynamic signal remote control apparatus; photocopiers (photographic, electrostatic, thermic); inductance coils (electricity); electric devices for attracting and killing insects; wire connectors (electricity); door bells (electric); chargers for electric batteries; hair-curlers, electrically heated; welding apparatus, electric; soldering irons, electric; solenoid valves (electromagnetic switches); measuring devices, electric; electrically heated hair curlers; locks (electric); transmitters of electronic signals; electronic security tags for goods; socks, electrically heated; electronic pens (visual display units); buzzers electric; electronic pocket translators; electronic organisers; electric door bells; door openers, electric; door closers, electric; monitoring apparatus, electric; compact discs (audio-video); receivers (audio and video); tone arms for record players; head cleaning tapes [recording]; tone arms for record players; sound recording apparatus; tape-recorders; sound locating instruments; sound carriers; sound transmitting apparatus; sound amplifiers; sound-reproducing apparatus; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers; temperature indicators; video telephones; loudspeaker boxes; letter scales; compact disc players; television apparatus; telephone apparatus; motion picture cameras; film cutting apparatus; radiotelephony sets; signalling bells; altimeters; cassette players; compasses; headphones; laser pointers (luminous pointers); microphones; mobile telephones; modems; navigational instruments; lenses (optics); mouse pads (mouse mats); plotters; projection apparatus; projection screens; slide projectors, radios; smartcards (cards with integrated circuits); video games adapted for use with television receivers only; walkie talkies; video cameras; video recorders; safety helmets for sports; none of the aforesaid goods being or featuring educational and/or entertainment content intended for general circulation; the aforementioned goods exclusive of board game programs for computers, computer board games and video board games for use with television receivers only, electronic board games, video board games for a connection to a television, board games software, cards/discs/tapes/wires/circuits for bearing or bearing board games and/or games software and/or arcade board games, board gaming machines including slot machines.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 9:        Software; downloadable computer applications.

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 9

The contested software includes, as a broader category, the opponent’s computer programs. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested goods, they are considered identical to the opponent’s goods.

The contested downloadable computer applications are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s computer programs (downloadable). Therefore, they are 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 and services found to be identical are directed at the public at large and at customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise. The degree of attention is considered average.

3. The signs

LIFE
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 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). This applies by analogy to international registrations designating the European Union. Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application. In the present case, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the English-speaking part of the relevant public.

The earlier mark is the word mark ‘LIFE’, which will be perceived as referring ‘to things or groups of things which are alive’ (information extracted from Collins Dictionary on 20/07/2017 at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/life). This word has no meaning in relation to the goods in question; therefore, the distinctiveness of the word is normal. In the case of word marks, it is the word as such that is protected and not its written form. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the sign is presented in upper case letters.

The contested sign is a figurative mark consisting of the verbal element ‘Ulife’ in rather standard characters except for the dot over the letter ‘i’, which is a small circle. The letter ‘U’ and the circle are depicted in light grey whereas the element ‘life’ is in dark grey.

The Court has held that, although average consumers normally perceive a mark as a whole and do not proceed to analyse its various details, the fact remains that, when perceiving a word sign, they will break it down into elements which, for them, suggest a specific meaning or which resemble words known to them (13/02/2007, T-256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57).

Therefore, the relevant public will dissect the sign into two components, ‘U’ and ‘life’. This is justified by the fact that only the element ‘life’ has a clear meaning and, moreover, the two elements are depicted in different shades of grey and the letter ‘U’ is upper case whereas the element ‘life’ is in lower case letters.

The element ‘life’, as seen above, is distinctive for the relevant goods. The element ‘U’ will be perceived as a vowel by part of the relevant public and as an abbreviation of the pronoun ‘you’ by another part of the public. In either scenario, as it is not descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak for the relevant goods, it is distinctive.

The signs have no elements that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in ‘LIFE’, which constitutes the entire earlier mark. Visually, they differ in the stylisation of the contested sign, and visually and aurally they differ in the letter ‘U’, present only in the contested sign.

Therefore, the signs are visually and aurally highly similar.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. The signs are highly similar, as they have in common the word ‘LIFE’. For the part of the relevant public that will perceive the letter ‘U’ as an abbreviation of ‘you’, the signs are conceptually different to this extent. For the part of the public for which the letter ‘U’ is meaningless, it does not introduce any conceptual difference.

Since the signs will be associated with similar meanings in both scenarios, the signs are conceptually highly similar.

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.

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.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The appreciation of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the earlier mark on the market, the association which can be made with the registered mark, the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods or services identified (recital 8 of the EUTMR). It must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 18; 11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).

The goods covered by the trade marks in dispute are identical. They target the public at large and customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise, and the degree of attention is average. The distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

The signs are visually, aurally and conceptually highly similar. The word ‘LIFE’ of the earlier sign is included in its entirety in the contested sign, and they differ only in the stylisation of the contested sign and in the letter ‘U’ at the beginning of that sign. The differences are not sufficient to counteract the significant similarity between them; therefore, there is a serious likelihood that the relevant public will confuse them and believe that they come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings. Indeed, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumer will perceive the contested mark as a sub-brand, a variation of the earlier mark, configured in a different way according to the type of goods or services that it designates (23/10/2002, T-104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26). Even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T-443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, §  54).

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the English-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 4 585 295. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

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

Andrea VALISA

Birgit FILTENBORG

Gailė SAKALAITĖ

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.