OPPOSITION No B 2 904 004

Grigorius Holdings SIA, Juglas street 31-8, 1064, Riga, Latvia (opponent).

a g a i n s t

Figueras Seating Solutions S.L., c/. Anselm Clavé, 224, 08186 Lica d’Amunt, Spain (applicant), represented by Herrero & Asociados, Cedaceros 1, 28014, Madrid, Spain (professional representative).

On 29/11/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 904 004 is rejected in its entirety.

2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 16 377 905 for the figurative mark , namely against all the goods in Class 20. The opposition is based on Latvian trade mark registration No 70 042 for the word mark ‘f.’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and (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.

a) The signs

f.
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is Latvia.

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 mark is a word mark and consists of a lower case letter ‘f’ followed by a full stop, ‘.’.

The opponent argues that the contested sign would be perceived as a letter ‘F’. However, in the Opposition Division’s opinion, this would not be how the sign would be perceived at first glance, and the overall impression that the contested sign will produce on the public will be of a row of three red circles with some white lines in the last circle. The sign is made up of simple geometric shapes and lines. However, the overall graphic depiction of the contested sign, namely its combination of shapes and colours, is distinctive to an average degree.

The length of the signs may influence the effect of the differences between them. Therefore, in short words, small differences may frequently lead to a different overall impression. In contrast, the public is less aware of differences between long signs.

Visually, the signs differ in all their components. None of the signs’ elements — the single letter ‘F’ followed by a full stop in the earlier mark and the figurative element in the contested sign — has a counterpart in the other sign.

As the signs do not visually coincide in any element, it is concluded that the signs are not visually similar.

Purely figurative signs are not subject to a phonetic assessment. As the contested sign is purely figurative, it is not possible to compare them aurally.

Conceptually, the fanciful red circles in the contested sign convey no meaning. Since one of the signs will not be associated with any meaning, the signs are not conceptually similar.

b) Conclusion

The signs are visually and conceptually dissimilar, and it is not possible to compare them aurally.

According to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the similarity of the signs is a condition for a finding of likelihood of confusion. Since the signs are dissimilar, one of the necessary conditions of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is not fulfilled, and the opposition must be rejected.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

Since the opponent is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of these proceedings.

According to Article 109(7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR (former Rule 94(3) and Rule 94(7)(d)(ii) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the costs to be paid to the applicant are the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Irina SOTIROVA

Loreto URRACA LUQUE

Janja FELC

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.