Gepubliceerd op donderdag 11 september 2008
IEF 7055
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Eindigt op visc

GvEA, 10 september 2008, zaak  T-106/07, Alcon Inc tegen OHIM / *Acri.Tec AG (Nederlandse vertaling nog niet beschikbaar).

Merkenrecht. Oppositieprocedure op grond van eerdere internationale woordmerken PROVISC en DUOVISC tegen aanvraag gemeenschapswoordmerk BioVisc (beide ingeschreven voor, kort gezegd, oogheelkundige produkten ). Oppositie afgewezen, geen verwarringsgevaar.

“38. Furthermore, the applicant does not put forward any specific argument as regards its claim that the dominant element of the marks at issue is ‘visc’.

39. Accordingly, the Court holds that the differences between the signs at issue resulting from the difference in their prefixes is sufficient to rule out a visual similarity and to distinguish them phonetically.

(…) 42. It is clear from the foregoing that the signs at issue have different conceptual meanings which the relevant public can perceive and understand. Consequently, it must be held that there is a conceptual difference between the signs at issue.

43. In the light of the foregoing, in the overall assessment of the marks at issue, the Board of Appeal rightly held, in the contested decision, that the visual, phonetic and conceptual difference of the signs at issue were sufficient, in spite of the identity of the goods concerned, to preclude the similarities between the signs at issue from giving rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the specialist Community consumer as to the commercial origin of the goods concerned.”

Lees het arrest hier.