Gepubliceerd op donderdag 29 september 2011
IEF 10256
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Functionele complementariteit

Gerecht EU, 29 september 2011, zaak T-150/10 (Telefónica O2 Germany tegen OHIM / Loopia).

Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprodedure tegen woordmerkaanvrage LOOPIA (hosting  computersites) op basis eerder gemeenschapswoordmerken LOOP en LOOPY. Relatieve weigeringsgrond, verwarringsgevaar. Vernietiging van Board of Appeal, want er waren geen soortgelijke waren of diensten, maar van functionele complementairiteit.

33 According to settled case-law, in assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant features of the relationship between them should be taken into account, including, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 23). Other factors may also be taken into account, such as the distribution channels of the goods concerned (Case T‑164/03 Ampafrance v OHIM – Johnson & Johnson (monBeBé) [2005] ECR II‑1401, paragraph 53, and Case T‑443/05 El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Bolaños Sabri (PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños) [2007] ECR II‑2579, paragraph 37).

44 The Board of Appeal, which described the marks at issue as visually and phonetically similar, was therefore wrong to find that there was a complete lack of similarity between the goods and services in question.

45. It is clear from the contested decision that it is because of the lack of similarity between the goods and services in question that the Board of Appeal held that, despite the similarity between the signs at issue, there was no likelihood of confusion