This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
ROMANIA


decision did not mention any comparison between the lists of goods of the marks in conflict, and limited itself only to the analysis of the signs.


The opponent lodged an appeal with OSIM’s Board of Appeal, arguing the following:


• According to the law, OSIM must analyse all three components: the signs, the products and the risk of confusion, whereas the previous decision was based on the analysis of only two elements;


• The list of goods of the marks in conflict is identical;


• The word part of the signs presents a large degree of similarity. In this case, the opponent brings teaching from the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) manual in respect to oppositions, namely “when the signs consist of verbal and device elements, the principle established is that the word element is predominant for consumers. This happens because the public does not have the tendency to compare the signs but rather to refer to the word component of the signs”; and


• The assessment of the risk of confusion must include all relevant elements, for example: the probability that all products would be sold in the same shop and on the same shelf; the fact that both companies deal almost exclusively with the manufacture and sale of soft drinks; and the large number of varieties of soft drinks branded ‘Amita’ (29), which could lead consumers to believe that Avita could be one of them.


T e decision delivered by OSIM’s Board of Appeal in April 2012 was completely in favour of CCHBC. It rejected the junior mark for all the goods. In coming to its decision, the board off ered the following rationale:


• Analysis of the signs shows a very high degree of similarity at the phonetic level; on the other hand the differences at the www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2013 95


IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT PAY, THE MARK REMAINS IN AN UNCERTAIN STATUS. IT IS NOT REGISTERED BECAUSE ALL FORMALITIES ARE NOT COMPLETED, NOR IS IT ‘IN APPLICATION’.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119