Usually sold side-by-side
Gerecht EU 18 oktober 2011, zaak T-304/10 (dm-drogerie markt GmbH tegen OHIM / Semtee)
Merkenrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprocedure tegen aanvraag van gemeenschapsbeeldmerk Caldea op grond van ouder internationaal woordmerk BALEA. Relatieve weigeringsgrond: geen verwarringsgevaar tussen schoonheidsproducten die (ondanks lage prijzen) met de grootste zorg worden uitgezocht. Zogenaamde verlaagde oplettendheid van het relevante publiek wordt afgewezen. Oppositie afgewezen.
Curia: Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de houder van het internationale woordmerk „BALEA”, voor waren en diensten van de klassen 3, 5 en 8, en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 899/20091 van de eerste kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 29 april 2010, houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling tot afwijzing van de oppositie die door verzoekster is ingesteld tegen de aanvraag tot inschrijving van het beeldmerk bevattende het woordbestanddeel „caldea”, voor waren en diensten van de klassen 3, 35, 37, 42, 44 en 45
70 As for the applicant’s arguments alleging a so-called low degree of attention of the relevant public and based on the method of distribution of the goods at issue, these have already been rejected at paragraphs 57 and 58 above.
57 However, that is not the case here, contrary to the applicant’s assertion concerning the ostensible marketing of the goods in question in a drugstore. As OHIM correctly points out, since those goods are not pharmaceutical products but beauty care products, they are usually sold side-by-side in drugstores, supermarkets, department stores and retail outlets. Consequently, the applicant’s assertion that consumers do not have the possibility to see the signs side-by-side is factually inaccurate. That has the effect of limiting yet further the significance of the low phonetic similarity found between the signs at issue, as the public will perceive the mark above all in visual terms (Case T‑292/01 Phillips-Van Heusen v OHIM – Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel (BASS) [2003] ECR II‑4335, paragraph 55). [red. arcering]
58 In addition, it should be noted, in response to the applicant’s argument that the goods in question are not very expensive, that consumers tend, on the contrary, to be attentive in the acquisition of body care products, on grounds of aesthetic considerations or personal preferences, sensitivity, allergies, type of skin and hair and so forth, as well as the expected effect of the products. It is, therefore, unlikely that those consumers would leave purchase choice to the vagaries of an ‘imperfect recollection’. On the contrary, it is far more probable that considerable care will be taken in acquiring the goods in question.
59 Accordingly, in view of the fact, first, that the signs at issue are visually and conceptually different, second, that the significance of those differences is further increased by the dominance of the visual perception of the signs at issue by the average consumer, who tends to be attentive, and third, that there exists only a low degree of phonetic similarity, the Court finds that the Board of Appeal did not err in concluding, at paragraph 22 of the contested decision, that the signs at issue were globally dissimilar.
62 The overall likelihood of confusion would, moreover, be increased by the fact that the goods in question are not very expensive and are therefore most often bought quickly and without a great deal of attention.
63 Furthermore, it should be taken into account that, during the sale of those goods in a drugstore, consumers are not generally faced with the two marks one beside the other, but have only one of them in memory.
