up unitedprint | Decision 2756636

OPPOSITION DIVISION
OPPOSITION No B 2 756 636
UP, 27-29, avenue des Louvresses, 92230 Gennevilliers, France (opponent),
represented by Casalonga Alicante, S.L., Avenida Maisonnave, 41-6C, 03003
Alicante, Spain (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
WML Wealth Management Legal Holding GmbH & Co. KG, Friedrich-List-Str. 3,
01445 Radebeul, Germany (applicant), represented by Riekert & Schmidtke, Am
Schießhaus 1, 01067 Dresden, Germany (professional representative).
On 15/11/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 756 636 is partially upheld, namely for the following
contested goods and services:
Class 9: Scientific, photographic, cinematographic, optical and teaching
apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for
conducting, accumulating electricity; apparatus for recording,
transmission or reproduction of sound or images; data processing
apparatus and equipment and accessories; computer software;
data storage devices.
Class 16: Paper, cardboard; printed matter; photographs; stationery and
educational supplies; office requisites and office machines;
decoration and art materials and media; disposable paper products.
Class 35: Advertising; business management; business administration;
marketing services; office functions.
Class 38: Telecommunications.
Class 41: Education; providing of training; vocational retraining;
entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design
relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design
and development of computer hardware and software; creating and
designing of Internet web sites.
2. European Union trade mark application No 15 214 661 is rejected for all the
above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining goods and
services.
3. Each party bears its own costs.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 2 of 13
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have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification),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.
REASONS
The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of
European Union trade mark application No 15 214 661 for the figurative mark
, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9,
16, 35, 38, 41 and 42. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark
registration No 13 466 081 and French trade mark registration No 4 133 116, both for
the figurative mark . 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.
The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition
Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the
opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 13 466 081.
a) The goods and services
Preliminary remark
The English version of the list of goods and services of the contested mark include in
Class 16 the following ‘paper cardboard’ and ‘decorating and art materials and
hangers’. However, these are clear typographical and translation mistakes which do
not alter the scope of protection of this mark. The contested mark was applied for in
German, and the relevant parts of the list of goods and services in German are
‘Papier, Pappe (Karton)’ and ‘Dekorations- und Künstlerbedarfsmaterialien und –
mittel’ of which the correct English translations are ‘paper, cardboard’ and ‘decoration
and art materials and media’. Article 147(3) EUTMR states in this regard ‘In cases of
doubt, the text in the language of the Office in which the application for the EU trade
mark was filed shall be authentic.’ Therefore, the Opposition Division disregards the
wrong translation.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 3 of 13
The goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:
Class 9: Magnetic cards, in particular magnetic payment cards, Identity cards,
magnetic, Smart cards [integrated circuit cards], Magnetic recording carriers; Data
processing equipment and computers, computer software and computer software
packages, in particular relating to payment orders, payment cards and services
relating to benefits provided to employees, individuals, associations, company
committees and similar, to companies and local and regional authorities, as well as
computer software and computer software packages relating to financial affairs and
operations; Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or
images; Mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; Recorded computer programmes,
data processing equipment and computers.
Class 16: Printed matter, prospectuses, printed cheques, printed cards,
newspapers and journals; Paper and cardboard (untreated, semi-finished or for
stationery or printing); Printed matter, books and manuals; Stationery; Office
requisites (except furniture); Instructional and teaching material (except apparatus).
Class 35: Arranging subscriptions to computer databases for others;
Organisational consultancy; Business management; Administration; Management
(accounting, administration), analysis and processing of business information;
Business administration; Business administration for the acquisition of goods or
services by means of prepaid cheques or cards; Consultancy and organisation of
business operations for obtaining customer loyalty; Publicity and sales promotion;
Consultancy, information and expert opinions relating to business organisation and
management; Business information or enquiries relating to the dissemination and
use of prepaid cheques or cards; Organisation and implementation of promotional
activities and campaigns relating to obtaining customer loyalty; Administration for
loyalty schemes; Management of customer accounts containing information relating
to prepaid cheques and cards, gift cards and other forms of payment; Compilation
and systemisation of data into computer databases; Rental of advertising space.
Class 36: Issuing loyalty cards (financial services), issuing and reimbursement
of orders, cheques and cards used as means of payment for benefits provided to
employees, individuals, associations, works councils or the like, to companies and
local and regional authorities, financing services of all kinds, investment of funds,
electronic funds transfer, credit card and debit card services, financial affairs and
financial operations, financial information and information relating to the aforesaid
benefits; All the aforesaid services may be provided online; Insurance, in particular
savings banks; Insurance underwriting services; Banking, monetary affairs,
Exchange agencies, Financial portfolio management, Debt collection agencies;
Issuing of travellers’ checks and letters of credit; Online banking; Insurance
information.
Class 38: Telecommunications, in particular information about
telecommunications, communications by fibreoptic networks, communications by
telecommunications networks, data transmission networks and computerised
communications networks, such as the Internet or intranets, communications by
computer terminals, communications by telephone, electronic mail, transmission of
information, messages and images by satellite, by telecommunications networks
(including mobile telephones), by data transmission networks and by computerised
communications networks, such as the Internet or intranets, providing access to
electronic sites, connection by means of telecommunications to computerised
communications networks, such as the Internet and intranets, conveying and
connection services for telecommunications, providing access to computerised

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 4 of 13
communications networks, including the Internet and intranets; News agencies;
News agencies; Radio, telephone or telegraph communications services; Television
and radio broadcasting; Computer-aided transmission of messages and images;
Communications by fiber [fibre] optic networks; Providing user access to a global
computer network (service providers); Providing telecommunications connections to
a global computer network; Electronic advertising services (telecommunications);
Information about telecommunication.
Class 41: Information relating to games, entertainment and education;
Organising games, lotteries and competitions with the awarding of prizes; Booking of
seats for shows; Organising and conducting colloquiums, seminars, conferences,
congresses, conventions; Organisation and conducting of competitions (education or
entertainment); Arranging and conducting of educational examinations; Organisation
of exhibitions for cultural, artistic or educational purposes; Organization of sports
competitions; Organisation of shows; Providing museum facilities (presentation,
exhibitions); Television entertainment; Radio entertainment; Arranging and
conducting entertainment, games; On-line games (over the Internet); Provision of
training and education; Correspondence courses; Practical training demonstrations;
Workshops (Arranging and conducting of -) [training]; Publication and lending of
books; Copywriting and publication of texts, except publicity texts; Publication of
electronic books and journals on-line.
Class 42: Internet hosting, secure messaging services; Creation (design-
development) of virtual and interactive images; Creation (design and development)
of works, and in particular of virtual and interactive works; Scientific and industrial
research (technical research) relating to the new information, computer and
communications network, communications and virtual and interactive image
technologies; Consultancy and expert technical advice in the field of
telecommunications and computer and data transmission networks; Technical
assistance (consultancy) for improving the conditions under which apparatus for
recording, transmission, reproduction and processing of data, sound and images,
telecommunications terminals, database servers, centres providing access to a
computer network or data transmission networks are implemented, and monitoring
and effectiveness of the aforesaid apparatus and instruments; Computer
programming; Computer software design; Rental of computer hardware and
software; Installation, maintenance and updating of computer software; Duplication
of computer programs; Engineering services relating to computers; Computer
programming; Computer software consultancy; Consultancy in the design and
development of computer hardware; Rental of apparatus for recording data; Rental
of apparatus for transmission, reproduction and processing of data; Creating (design)
and maintenance (updating) of computer sites, for others; Design and development
of computer hardware and software; Data conversion of computer programs and
data [not physical conversion]; Conversion of data or documents from a physical
medium to an online medium; Recovery of computer data, all aforementioned
services are not provided in the field of real estate brokerage and financial services
related to real estate.
The contested goods and services are the following:
Class 9: Scientific, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing,
measuring and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for
conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling
electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images;
data processing apparatus and equipment and accessories; computer software;
distance and dimension measuring instruments; data storage devices.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 5 of 13
Class 16: Paper, cardboard; printed matter; photographs; stationery and
educational supplies; office requisites and office machines; decoration and art
materials and media’; disposable paper products.
Class 35: Advertising; business management; business administration;
marketing services; office functions.
Class 38: Telecommunications.
Class 41: Education; providing of training; vocational retraining; entertainment;
sporting and cultural activities.
Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design relating
thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of
computer hardware and software; creating and designing of Internet web sites.
An interpretation of the wording of the list of goods and services is required to
determine the scope of protection of these goods and services.
The terms ‘in particular’, ‘such as’, ‘including’, used in the opponent’s list of goods
and services, indicates that the specific goods and services are only examples of
items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other
words, it introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (09/04/2003, T-224/01,
Nu-Tride, EU:T:2003:107).
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 9
Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; data
processing equipment; computer software are identically contained in both lists of
goods.
The contested photographic, cinematographic, optical apparatus and instruments are
included in the broad category of the opponent’s apparatus for recording,
transmission or reproduction of images. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested teaching apparatus and instruments overlap with the opponent’s
computers. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested data processing apparatus and accessories include, as a broader
category the opponent’s computers, computer software. Since the Opposition
Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested goods, they are
considered identical to the opponent’s goods.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 6 of 13
The contested data storage devices include, as a broader category the opponent’s
computers. 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 apparatus and instruments for accumulating electricity are similar to
the opponent’s computers since these include, for example, batteries and chargers
which are indispensable for their use, e.g. as it is in case of a laptop, hence they are
complementary. Furthermore, they have the same distribution channels and the
same relevant public.
The contested apparatus and instruments for conducting electricity are similar to the
opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images
as they can coincide in end user and distribution channels. Furthermore they are
complementary since, for example, the quality of cables is one of the parameters
which determines the quality of the recording of sound and/or images.
The contested scientific apparatus and instruments are similar to the opponent’s
services of scientific and industrial research (technical research) relating to the new
information, computer and communications network, communications and virtual and
interactive image technologies in Class 42 since they can coincide in producer and
end user. Furthermore they are complementary.
However, the remaining goods in this class, namely weighing, measuring apparatus
and instruments; apparatus and instruments for switching, transforming, regulating or
controlling electricity; distance and dimension measuring instruments are dissimilar to
the opponent’s goods in Class 9. Although some of these goods might be of similar
nature, they differ in their ultimate purpose and methods of use. Furthermore, they
are neither complementary nor in competition with each other.
The above listed contested goods are also dissimilar to the opponent’s goods in
Class 16 since they clearly differ in their natures, usual origins, trade channels,
methods of use and are neither complementary nor in competition with each other.
The degree of dissimilarity between these contested goods and the opponent’s
services in Class 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 is even greater. These goods and services
have a different nature and purpose. They are not complementary nor in competition.
They have different distribution channels and sales outlets. It is not usual that the
same kinds of undertakings are involved in the production or the provision of these
goods and services. They are, therefore, dissimilar.
Contested goods in Class 16
Printed matter; stationery; paper, cardboard; office requisites are identically
contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms)
The contested photographs are included in the broad category of the opponent’s
printed matter. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested office machines are included in the broad category of the opponent’s
office requisites (except furniture). The term ‘office requisites (except furniture)’ and
the exclusion of furniture would suggest that ‘office requisites’ is included as a broad
term. ‘Office requisites’ cover a wide range of products aimed to be used in the office,
whereas ‘office machines’ in Class 16 refers to office-related machines, which are
primarily used as office requisites. Since the term ‘office requisites’, as a broader
term, covers ‘office machines’, these goods are identical.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 7 of 13
The contested decoration and art materials and media overlap with the opponent’s
paper and cardboard (untreated, semi-finished or for stationery or printing).
Therefore, they are identical.
The contested disposable paper products overlap with the opponent’s paper and
cardboard (untreated, semi-finished or for stationery or printing). Therefore, they are
identical.
The contested educational supplies overlap with the opponent’s instructional and
teaching material (except apparatus). Therefore, they are identical.
Contested services in Class 35
Business management; business administration are identically contained in both lists
of services.
The contested advertising; marketing services are identical to the opponent’s
organisation and implementation of promotional activities and campaigns relating to
obtaining customer loyalty either because the opponent’s services are included in, or
overlap with, these contested services.
The contested office functions cover services which are aimed at performing day-to-
day operations that are required by a business to achieve its commercial purpose.
The opponent’s business administration includes the efficient organization of people
and other resources, to direct activities toward common goals and objectives. Hence,
all these services can have a similar purpose, can coincide in producer and end user.
Therefore, are considered similar.
Contested services in Class 38
Telecommunications are identically contained in both lists of services.
Contested services in Class 41
Education; providing of training are identically contained in both lists of services
(including synonyms).
The contested services of vocational retraining are included in the broad category of
the opponent’s services of provision of training and education. Therefore, they are
identical.
The contested services of entertainment include, as a broader category the
opponent’s television entertainment as well as the contested sporting and cultural
activities include, as a broader category the opponent’s organisation of exhibitions for
cultural, artistic or educational purposes and organization of sports competitions.
Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of these
contested services, they are considered identical to the correspondent opponent’s
services.
Contested services in Class 42
Creating and designing of Internet web sites; design and development of computer
hardware and software are identically contained in both lists of services (including
synonyms).

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 8 of 13
The contested scientific and technological services and research and design relating
thereto; industrial analysis and research services overlap with the opponent’s
scientific and industrial research (technical research) relating to the new information,
computer and communications network, communications and virtual and interactive
image technologies. Therefore, they are identical.
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 are
directed at the public at large as well as at the business customers with specific
professional knowledge or expertise.
The public’s degree of attentiveness may vary from average to high, depending on
the price, specialised nature, or terms and conditions of the purchased goods and
services.
c) The signs
Earlier trade mark Contested sign
The relevant territory is 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 trade mark is a figurative mark composed of two bold letters ‘UP’ in white,
placed within an orange square. The letters are written in a rather standard typeface
while the letter ‘U’ is capitalized and the letter ‘P’ could be perceived as either written
in lowercase, or written as a capital letter but placed lower than the letter ‘U’.
The contested sign is a figurative mark consisting of verbal elements ‘UP Unitedprint’,
while the verbal element ‘UP’, in bold white characters is placed within a black
square, followed by the remaining verbal element, ‘Unitedprint’, which is written in
bold black, rather standard, typeface.
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

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 9 of 13
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.
The contested mark as a whole has not meaning, however each of its verbal
elements is a meaningful term in English, therefore, the Opposition Division finds it
appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the English-speaking part of the
public such as the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The common element ‘UP’ could be perceived either as a combination of two letters
‘U’ and ‘P’ or as a word. In the latter case it has several meanings in English, and this
depending if it will be perceived as a preposition, adverb, verb or adjective (see e.g.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/up_1). Moreover, considering the
composition of the contested sign, there it might be understood as the abbreviation
for ‘united print’. Yet, without citing all the meanings, the Opposition Division finds
that whatever way it will be understood by the relevant public, it is not straightforward
descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak for the relevant goods and services, therefore
it is distinctive.
In its observations, the applicant argues that the earlier mark has a low degree of
distinctiveness because the word ‘up’ will be perceived as ‘increase, jump, rise or
raise’ by the relevant public and therefore it will be recognized ‘as being the
characterization of a certain way of use or practice concerning the goods and
services, e.g. to increase the business management, a rise of stationary or the raise
of scientific and industrial research’ [sic]. The Opposition Division does not agree with
these arguments, the link that, according to the applicant’s opinion, can be found
between the term ‘up’ and the opponent’s goods and services is too vague as it
involves several mental steps from consumers to make a mental connection between
these meanings of the term ‘up’ and the opponent’s goods and services.
The applicant furthermore claims that the earlier trade mark has a low degree of
distinctive character since ‘as far as short signs are concerned, they are in principle
of a low degree of inherent distinctiveness’ [sic]. The Opposition Division points out
that the General Court has stated in a number of cases that even a trade mark
containing a single letter or a single numeral may indeed be inherently distinctive
(judgments of 08/05/2012, T-101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 50; 06/10/2011, T-176/10,
Seven for all mankind, EU:T:2011:577, § 36; 05/11/2013, T-378/12, X,
EU:T:2013:574, § 37-51).
In its judgment of 09/09/2010, C-265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, §§ 33-39, the Court,
held that the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks must be assessed according
to an examination based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned
and the same criteria that apply to other word marks. Although that judgment deals
with absolute grounds, the principle established by the Court (i.e. that the application
of the criterion of distinctiveness must be the same for all marks) also applies in inter
partes cases when it comes to determining the distinctiveness of single-letter
components in trade marks.
The same rules apply to two-letters trade marks. Hence, unless the letter
combination itself is descriptive or otherwise related to the goods and services, these
components are not necessarily limited in their distinctiveness.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 10 of 13
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the low degree of distinctiveness of
the earlier mark must be set aside.
The verbal element ‘unitedprint’ of the contested sign does not exist as such in
English. Nevertheless, although the average consumer normally perceives a mark as
a whole and does 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 (judgment of
13/02/2007, T-256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57).
Hence, the relevant consumer is very likely to recognize the words ‘united’ and ‘print’
there.
The Opposition Division finds that a significant part of the relevant public is very likely
to perceive these two verbal elements as a denomination of an organization or a
company, taking into account the composition of the sign and considering that the
word ‘united’ (meaning ‘something what was ‘made one: combined; relating to or
produced by joint action: a united effort; joined together for a common purpose, (see
for example https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/united or
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/united) is often used in the names of
international organizations and/or football or other sports teams formed by
amalgamation.
In any case, the word ‘united’ is not descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak for the
relevant goods and services, therefore it is distinctive.
The element ‘print’ will be associated with ‘produce books, newspapers, etc.
especially in large quantities, by a mechanical process involving the transfer of text or
design to paper, respectively relating to the printing industry of the printed media’
(see e.g. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/print). Bearing in mind that a part
of the relevant goods are printed matter and related goods, this element on its own is
non-distinctive for all the goods in Class 16.
As regards the figurative elements in the two marks, these are considered as rather
decorative, both being simple geometric forms, namely squares, and as such they
are less distinctive than the verbal elements.
None of the marks in conflict has elements that could be considered more dominant
(visually eye-catching) than other elements.
Visually, the marks are similar to the extent that they coincide in the bold white
letters ‘UP’ placed within a square, which constitute the entire earlier mark and forms
the beginning of the contested mark. They differ in the colour of the squares and
slightly in their stylisation as well as in the additional verbal element ‘Unitedprint’ of
the contested mark, which have no counterparts in the earlier mark.
The first part is generally the one that primarily catches the consumer’s attention and,
therefore, will be remembered more clearly than the rest of the sign. This means that
in general the beginning of a sign has a significant influence on the general
impression made by the mark (15/12/2009, T-412/08, Trubion, EU:T:2009:507, § 40;
25/03/2009, T-109/07, Spa Therapy, EU:T:2009:81, § 30).
Thus, being placed at the beginning, the letters ‘UP’ within a square, a sign which is
almost identical to the earlier mark, is likely to have a greater impact than the rest of
the contested mark among all the relevant public.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 11 of 13
Therefore, the signs are visually similar to an average degree.
Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‛UP’,
present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the word
element ‘unitedprint’ of the contested sign which have no counterpart in the earlier
mark. However, the combination of ‘U’ and ‘P’ creates a strong sound at the
beginning of the contested sign that it is quite remarkable.
Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to a low degree.
Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic
content conveyed by the marks. The verbal elements ‘united print’ do not affect
significantly the recognition and comprehension of the word ‘UP’ in the contested
sign. The letters ‘UP’ could be perceived as the abbreviation of ‘united print’, however
this will not prevent the relevant public, or at least a part of it, to perceive any of the
various meanings this word has.
Consequently, to the extent that the two marks will be associated with the meaning of
the word ‘UP’, as defined above, the signs are conceptually similar to at least an
average degree.
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. The arguments brought forward by the applicant
regarding the distinctiveness of the earlier mark have already been dealt with above.
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 and services 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
The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the
factors relevant to the circumstances of the case; this appreciation depends on
numerous elements and, in particular, on the degree of recognition of the mark on the
market, the association that the public might make between the two marks and the
degree of similarity between the signs and the goods and services (11/11/1997,
C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
The likelihood of confusion includes a likelihood of association, in the sense that the
public may, if not confuse the two signs directly, believe that they come from the
same undertaking or from economically related ones (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl,
EU:C:1997:528, § 16).

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 12 of 13
In the present case, the goods and services at issue have been found partly identical,
partly similar and partly dissimilar and are directed at the public at large and
professionals whose degree of attention is deemed average to high.
The marks are similar to the extent that they coincide in the white letters ‘UP’ placed
within a square which constitute the earlier mark. It is significant that an almost
identical sign to the earlier mark (letters ‘UP’ within a square) is fully included, yet
clearly perceptible, at the beginning of the contested sign. Therefore, even if the
contested sign consist of additional verbal elements; the coincidence in the letters
‘UP’ within a square is clearly noticeable and reminiscent.
The Opposition Division notes, that it is a common practice for manufacturers to
make variations of their trade marks, for example by altering the typeface or colours,
or adding verbal or figurative elements to them, in order to denote new product lines,
or to endow their trade mark with a new, modernized image. Moreover, consumers
are well accustomed to word marks being stylised and embellished with logotypes
and other devices.
Since the combination of white bold letters ‘UP’ within a square will be easily
recognized and perceived in both signs, the Opposition Division finds that the
relevant consumer may find the contested sign as a variation of the earlier mark. The
additional verbal elements ‘Unitedprint’ in the contested sign will be most likely
perceived as a reference to an organization or company. However, these elements
have rather a minimal impact in its differentiating since the relevant public, when
confronted with either one or another signs, might well believe that one is a shorter
version of another one. Consequently, the relevant public may attribute the same (or
economically linked) commercial origin to the goods and services that are identical
and similar, even where the public’s degree of attention is higher.
Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of
confusion on the part of the English-speaking part of the public and therefore the
opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union
trade mark registration No 13 466 081. 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.
It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the
goods and services found to be identical and similar to those of the earlier trade
mark.
The rest of the contested goods, namely weighing, measuring apparatus and
instruments; apparatus and instruments for switching, transforming, regulating or
controlling electricity; distance and dimension measuring instruments in Class 9, are
dissimilar. As similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the
application of Article 8(1) EUTMR, the opposition based on this article and directed at
these goods cannot be successful.
The opponent has also based its opposition on the French trade mark registration
No 4 133 116. Since this trade mark covers the same or a narrower scope of goods
and services, the outcome cannot be different with respect to goods for which the
opposition has already been rejected. Therefore, no likelihood of confusion exists
with respect to those goods.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 636 page: 13 of 13
COSTS
According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must
bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 109(3)
EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if
reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division will decide a different
apportionment of costs.
Since the opposition is successful for only some of the contested goods and
services, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others.
Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.
The Opposition Division
Julia SCHRADER Renata COTTRELL Sigrid DICKMANNS
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.

Leave Comment