OPPOSITION No B 3 117 209

Interparfums Suisse, Schiffbaustrasse 2, 8005 Zürich, Switzerland (opponent), represented by Natacha Finateu, 4 rond-point des Champs-Elysées, 75008 Paris, France (employee)

a g a i n s t

Aspasia Matakoudi, Vlaxernon 12, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece (applicant), represented by Christina Foropoulou, 3 Tsimiski Street, 54625 Thessaloniki, Greece (professional representative).

On 20/08/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 117 209 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2. European Union trade mark application No 18 186 623 is rejected in its entirety.

3. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 320.

REASONS

On 29/04/2020, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 186 623 ‘LUVIN’ (word mark). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 17 911 434 ‘LANVIN’ (word mark) and French trade mark registration No 3 412 207 ‘LANVIN’ (word mark).  The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) 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.

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s French trade mark registration No 3 412 207 ‘LANVIN’ (word mark). 

a) The goods

The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 3: Perfumery.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 3: Eyeliner; cheek colors; body paint for cosmetic purposes; tanning milks [cosmetics]; face and body glitter; lip glosses; decorative cosmetics; colour cosmetics for the eyes; lip cosmetics; concealers; lip coatings [cosmetic]; cosmetics in the form of rouge; cosmetics in the form of eye shadow; cosmetics in the form of gels; cosmetic pencils for cheeks; cosmetic eye pencils; eye concealers; concealers for lines and wrinkles; cosmetic rouges; liners [cosmetics] for the eyes; beauty masks; cosmetic face powders; facial concealer; base cream; camouflage cream; self tanning creams [cosmetic]; make up foundations; lipsticks; lip stains [cosmetics]; cosmetic creams; suntan creams; mascara; eyebrow gel; eyeliner pencils; make-up pencils; blush pencils; eyebrow pencils; eye pencils; lip liners; eyeshadow palettes; loose face powder; face powder; eyes make-up; skin make-up; make-up for the face; make-up for the face and body; rouges; creamy rouge; make-up kits; glitter for cosmetic purposes; eyelid shadow; eyebrow powder; eyebrow cosmetics; eyebrow colors in the form of pencils and powders; oils for hair conditioning; mousses [toiletries] for use in styling the hair; hair mousse; styling mousse; beard balm; hair dyes; hair gel; styling gels; gel sprays being styling aids; hair desiccating treatments for cosmetic use; hair preservation treatments for cosmetic use; hair strengthening treatment lotions; cosmetics for the use on the hair; cosmetic preparations for the hair and scalp; cosmetic hair dressing preparations; cosmetic hair lotions; hair wax; hair creams; hair care creams; creams for fixing hair; lotions for beards; hair lotions; hair moisturising conditioners; hair conditioners; hair masks; hair care masks; emollient shampoos; conditioning creams; hair waving preparations; non-medicated hair treatment preparations for cosmetic purposes; non-medicated shampoos; hair pomades; hair glaze; permanent waving lotions; preparations for protecting the hair from the sun; hair dyeing preparations; hair care preparations, not for medical purposes; preparations for setting hair; hair straightening preparations; beauty preparations for the hair; hair texturizers; permanent waving and curling preparations; hair fixers; hair nourishers; beard care preparations; hair dressings for men; wax treatments for the hair; detanglers; shampoos; hair spray; gels for fixing hair; bath foam; shower and bath foam; bath milk; foaming bath gels; bath creams (non-medicated -); bath and shower gels, not for medical purposes; shower gels; cosmetic soaps; shower creams; body cream soap; body washes; facial soaps; skin soap; liquid soaps for hands and face; sparkling fluid for the body; anti-aging moisturizers; anti-aging skincare preparations; anti-aging moisturizers used as cosmetics; sun-tanning creams and lotions; creams for cellulite reduction; eye wrinkle lotions; anti-wrinkle cream; scented body creams; cleansing mousse; body butter; moisturizing milk; milky lotions for skin care; cleansing milks for skin care; cleansing milk for toilet purposes; facial emulsions; body emulsions; hand milks; cosmetic preparations for skin care; dermatological creams [other than medicated]; suntan oils for cosmetic purposes; body oil spray; moisturising preparations; hydrating creams for cosmetic use; moisturising skin creams [cosmetic]; moisturising skin lotions [cosmetic]; skin moisturizer masks; face gels; moisturising gels [cosmetic]; cosmetic oils for the epidermis; cosmetics for the treatment of dry skin; cosmetic preparations for skin renewal; cosmetic preparations for dry skin during pregnancy; skin cleansers [cosmetic]; facial care preparations; cosmetic preparations for skin firming; cosmetic skin enhancers; cosmetic products for the shower; cosmetic moisturisers; facial cleansers [cosmetic]; cosmetic body scrubs; skin care creams [cosmetic]; cosmetic mud masks; body mask cream; night cream; face creams for cosmetic use; body cream; exfoliant creams; creams for firming the skin; skin cream; face and body creams; moisturising creams; day creams; skin emollients; facial masks; cleansing masks; skin masks [cosmetics]; clay skin masks; body masks; body scrub; exfoliating scrubs for cosmetic purposes; exfoliants for the care of the skin; face scrubs (non-medicated -); body moisturisers; facial washes [cosmetic]; toners for cosmetic use.

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or complementary to each other.

All the contested goods can be divided in categories of goods belonging, broadly speaking, to the market sector of cosmetics and personal hygiene.

The opponent’s goods are perfumery products that, broadly speaking, also belong to the market sector of cosmetics. Even if it cannot be excluded that some of the contested goods would coincide in numerous relevant criteria such as their purpose, method of use, their complementarity or whether they are competing goods, these goods clearly belong to one homogeneous sector of products on the market and for the majority of them they are - at least - produced by the same companies, target the same end user and are being sold through the same channels of distribution. Based on this conclusion, none of the contested goods can be considered dissimilar.

It follows, therefore, that all the contested goods are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods.

b) Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods found to be at least similar to a low degree are directed at the public at large.

The degree of attention is average.

The Opposition Division does not agree with the applicant, in its observations of 03/02/2021, in which it points out that ‘the average consumer displays a particularly high level of attention at the time of purchase of such goods and he purchases only after a particularly careful examination’. In this respect while it is true that the average consumer, as a general rule, pays less attention to everyday consumer goods, that level of attention would not however be less or, the Opposition Division adds, more than average, when faced with the goods that this case concerns, because certain aesthetic considerations or consumers’ personal preferences, their sensitivities or their skin types may play a role in the purchase of those goods. Therefore, the level of attention of the relevant public would be average (16/12/2015, T-356/14, Kerashot / K KERASOL, EU:T:2015:978, § 23). Therefore, the applicant’s argument has to be set aside.

c) The signs

LANVIN	LUVIN
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is France.

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 the word mark ‘LANVIN’. The contested sign is the word mark ‘LUVIN’.

The earlier mark and the contested sign will be perceived as meaningless terms. The earlier mark has, therefore, a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness, as well as the contested sign is distinctive.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in the letters/phonemes ‘L*VIN’, that is their beginnings and endings, meaning that almost the whole contested sign, with the exception of the second letter ‘U’, is included in the earlier mark. However, they differ in the second and third letters/phonemes ‘A’ and ‘N’ of the earlier mark and the second letter/phoneme ‘U’ of the contested sign. From an aural point of view, both the earlier mark and the contested sign will be pronounced in two syllables ‘LAN-VIN’ and ‘LU-VIN’. Furthermore, the pronunciation of the letters ‘AN’ of the earlier mark and the letter ‘U’ of the contested sign is also similar from a French perspective and the marks have a similar rhythm and intonation overall.

Therefore, they are visually similar to an average degree and phonetically to an above-average degree.

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark has acquired a strong reputation, notably in the perfume industry, since the creation of the fashion house ‘LANVIN’ in 1920. Founded in 1889, Lanvin is considered to be one of the oldest French couture houses. The brand represents an appealing delicate, poetic and understated style. Inseparable from the brand’s history, Lanvin fragrances share the timeless chic of ‘Jeanne Lanvin’s Couture’, enhanced with ultra-contemporary creativity. ‘Interparfums’, the opponent, has been developing and distributing goods in Class 3, particularly perfume products, under the mark ‘LANVIN’ since 2004. Then ‘Interparfums’ acquired the trade marks ‘LANVIN’ worldwide for goods in Class 3 from ‘Maison Jeanne Lanvin’ in 2007 after a collaboration as the exclusive licensee. In France, the goods in Class 3 displaying the mark ‘LANVIN’ are distributed in 1 300 stores and on the websites of the authorised retailers. ‘Interparfums’ has maintained the high-quality luxury brand image of the trade mark ‘LANVIN’, which is known to a significant part of the public.

This claim must be properly considered given that the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark must be taken into account in the assessment of likelihood of confusion. Indeed, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, and therefore marks with a highly distinctive character because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).

In the present case, the contested trade mark was filed on 21/01/2020. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based had acquired an enhanced distinctiveness in France prior to that date.

The opponent was initially requested to file further facts, evidence and arguments before 25/09/2020. This deadline was extended until 25/11/2020. On 24/11/2020, within the deadline, the opponent submitted evidence to support this claim.

The evidence consists essentially of the following documents.

• Exhibit 2: various publications known as ‘Lanvin Press Books’, dated 2012-2019, containing examples of advertisements and some press articles (the vast majority in French) referring to perfumes under the trade mark ‘LANVIN’ that had been published in magazines and websites such as Version Femina, GRAZIA, Número, parisplanetfashion.fr, LE POINT, PARIS CAPITALE, Expression Cosmétique, Formes de Luxe, Femme Actuele Cosmétique magazine, Voici, MidiShopping, BURDA, l’OFFICIEL, Crash, PRESTIGE, Stylist, Faux Q, Bordeaux Madame, Beauterama.fr, luxury-design.com, luxsure.fr, luxe-magazine.fr, Les Nouvelles Esthétiques Spa, Lesflaconsdeparfum.com, leparisien.fr, laprovence.com, ladepeche.fr, jardindesmodes.fr, Jalouse, infobebes.com, industrie.com, Gazelle Hors-Série, fr.purelles.yahoo.com, euronews.com, L’Express Styles, dressingdesmodeuses.com, Collectionneur & Chineur HS, bejines.fr, be.com, parfum-femme.prime-beauté.com, osmoz.fr, PUBLIC, avantages, Crush Magazine, Stiletto.fr, purebeauté.fr, ParisPlanetFashion.fr, abc-luxe.com, Modes & Travaux, Mariages, vogue.fr, Relaxnews, prime-beauté.com, news.doctissimo.fr, Emballages Magazine, Formes de Luxe, Black Beauty, artsixmic.fr, annaurbangirl.fr, Le Point Spécial Cadeaux, Le Figaro spécial cadeaux, grazia.fr, femmes.portail.free.fr, meltyfashion.fr, nicematin.com, L’Espress Styles, Paris Selec, Oob mag, Madame Figaro, vivelaroseetlelilas.com, Sensuelle, parfumista.net, Narcisse, maxi-mag.fr, Maxi, Marions Nous, Marie France, BEAUTÉ Nouveautés, lofficielmode.com, Le Journal des Enchères, La Gazette de l’Hotel Drouot, Instagram Barocknroll, Notre Temps, Télépro, Urbanne Nantes, Tours Madame, Sensuelle, Printemps, premiumbeautynews.com, Point de Vue, Numéro, mariefrance.fr, Luxetentations.fr, Lodoesmakeup.com, levasiondessens.com, Instagram Les Envies de Georgette, lesenviesdegeorgette.wordpress.com, Le Point Supplément, lamodecnous.com, kleo-beaute.com, FLOW, Femme Actuelle, Femme Actuelle Jeux Extra, Fr.euronews.com, ECORESEAU, Eccelso, Bordeaux Madame, Beauteblogchic.com, Blog.slate.fr, Belles Demeures, cosmétiquehebdo, GLAMOUR, Creola, Dauphiné Libéré, Vogue Paris, Leblogdeludivine.com, Fragrantica.com, Camille et les garcons, Facebook.com, Instagram.com, COSMOPOLITAN, Triangle d’Or, cosmétiquemag, So chic, PARIS MATCH, GLAMOUR, Monaco Madame, Marie Claire, Toutpourlesfemmes.com, Style Cartel, Needs and Moods, initialscb.fr, ELLE, CHL Mag, Prestige International Magazine, Dansmonsacdefille.com, goutsetpassions.com, POINT DE VUE, prima, Gala FRA, Gala, Voici FRA, AMINA, The-marietteblog.blogspot.fr, The Good Life, Vanity Fair FRA, ELLE FRA, PUBLIC, CHALLENGES, LADÉPÊCHE.FR, LA PROVENCE, L’INDEPENDENT, FASHION NETWORK FRANCE, AUPARFUM.COM, HELLOCOTON, DANDY MAGAZINE, in France. At the top of some documents, reference is made to the different magazines, country of distribution (France), their frequency of distribution, audience and their circulation figures. There are pictures of different kinds of bottles of perfumes under different names, such as ‘ME’, ‘Marry Me!’, ‘Couture’, ‘Eclat d’Arpége Pretty Face’, ‘Eclat d’Arpège Arty’, ‘Avant Garde’, ‘ARPÈGE’, ‘Rumeur2’, ‘Couture Birdie’, Eclat d’Arpège Eyes on you’, ‘Jeanne’, ‘Eclat de Fleurs’, ‘Modern Princess’, ‘My Sin’, ‘A girl in Capri’, and on the bottle, or its packaging, the trade mark ‘LANVIN’ is also displayed, as shown below:

 Exhibit 3: a letter (in French and translated into English), dated 22/06/2020, concerning an award from the ‘Fragrance Foundation France’ for the fragrance ‘LANVIN – A Girl in Capri’, awarded in 2020 in the category of ‘Best feminine fragrance’, ‘Best bottle for a feminine fragrance’ and ‘Best feminine launch’. The award ceremony took place on 08/10/2020.

 Exhibit 4: annual reports from 2017, 2018 and 2019 (in English) showing a high number of sales. The annual report of 2017 mentions that in 2016 Lanvin fragrances had EUR 57.5 million in sales. According to the annual report of 2018, the sales in 2018 were EUR 59.0 million and according to the annual report of 2019, the sales in 2019 were EUR 52.1 million. The driving force behind these figures was, in particular, the international launch of the product lines ‘Modern Princess’ in 2016, ‘A Girl in Capri’ in 2019 and the strength of ‘Éclat d’Arpège’.

 Exhibit 5: an attestation of the opponent’s statutory auditor (in English), signed on 19/05/2020. This declaration includes a table entitled: ‘LANVIN Volume of sale in France from 2013 to 2019’. These figures show a very high volume of sales of perfume, as shown below.

LANVIN/France in Units	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	Total
Perfume bottles	363.600	325.488	217.386	201.270	235.145	236.573	238.541	1.818.003

 Exhibit 8: a document (in French) about a competition organised on 16/06/2016 by the magazine STYLIST for the launch of the perfume line ‘Lanvin Modern Princess’, also displaying a picture of the perfume bottle  

 Exhibit 9: a document (in French), dated 2018 and 2019, showing some of the opponent’s digital advertising operations promoting the earlier mark’s products and displaying perfume bottles.

 Exhibit 10: a document consisting of a number of photographs of ‘LANVIN’ products in retailers’ shops in France, such as ‘Sephora’, ‘Galeries Lafayette’, ‘Beauty Success’, ‘Nocibé’, between 2017 and 2020 (according to the opponent), showing the visibility of the trade mark ‘LANVIN’ to the public.

 Exhibit 11: several invoices, dated 2015-2019, from the opponent to retailers in France, mentioning the trade mark ‘LANVIN’ and some different lines of its perfumery products in the description.

Assessment of the evidence

Enhanced distinctiveness requires recognition of the mark by a significant part of the relevant public. Account should be taken, in particular, of:

 the inherent characteristics of the mark, including whether or not it contain an element that is descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered;

 the market share held by the mark;

 how intensive, geographically widespread and long standing the use of the mark has been;

 the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark;

 the proportion of the relevant section of the public which, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking;

 statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations.

(22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 22).

As far as the attestation of the statutory auditor of the opponent is concerned (exhibit 5), written statements referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR are admissible means of evidence. Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR lists means of giving evidence, amongst which are sworn or affirmed written statements or other statements that have a similar effect according to the law of the State in which they have been drawn up. As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, statements drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees are generally given less weight than independent evidence. This is because the perception of the party involved in the dispute may be more or less affected by its personal interests in the matter. However, this does not mean that such statements do not have any probative value at all. The final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in the particular case. This is because, in general, further evidence is necessary to establish use, reputation or enhanced distinctiveness, since such statements have to be considered as having less probative value than physical evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or evidence originating from independent sources. Bearing in mind the foregoing, it is necessary to assess the remaining evidence to see whether or not the content of the attestation is supported by the other items of evidence, which, indeed, is the case here.

It is clear from the evidence that the earlier trade mark ‘LANVIN’ was subject to long-standing and intensive use in France before the relevant date (21/01/2020), and is generally known in the perfumery sector, where it enjoys a consolidated position among the leading brands. It often appears in advertisements (exhibit 2) together with other prestigious brands in the same field. Even though the opponent’s advertising expenditure is not mentioned directly, it can be deduced by the very high number of advertisements (exhibit 2) in very prestigious, major (inter)national, fashion magazines with a wide circulation (e.g. Grazia, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Le Point, Paris Capitale, Elle, Burda, Vanity Fair and Marie Claire), and also by the many photographs of promotional material for ‘LANVIN’ products in retailers’ shops in France, such as ‘Sephora’, ‘Galeries Lafayette’, ‘Beauty Success’ and ‘Nocibé’. This evidence indicates that the opponent invested a very large amount of money in the presentation and promotion of its perfumery products.

The awareness and recognition of the trade mark has, furthermore, been attested to by diverse independent sources, such as the award (exhibit 3) won by ‘LANVIN’ for the perfume line ‘A Girl in Capri’.

Furthermore, the opponent also shows very high sales figures – mentioned above in the annual reports between 2017 and 2019 (exhibit 4) and in the table in the attestation (exhibit 5) between 2013 and 2019 – corroborated by some invoices (exhibit 11). This evidence and the very high number of references and advertisements in the press all unequivocally show that the mark enjoys an at least substantial degree of recognition among the relevant public and that many customers in France know of it.

In addition, it is common practice in the perfume industry to use combinations of distinctive signs to designate, for example, the house brand, a specific collection and/or a product line. In this sense, the usage shown on the bottles and the packages does not deviate from accepted practices in the industry. Therefore, the Opposition Division accepts that the bottles of perfumes that have various different names, such as ‘ME’, ‘Marry Me!’, ‘Couture’, ‘Éclat d’Arpége Pretty Face’, ‘Éclat d’Arpège Arty’, ‘Avant Garde’, ‘ARPÈGE’, ‘Rumeur2’, ‘Couture Birdie’, ‘Éclat d’Arpège Eyes on you’, ‘Jeanne’, ‘Éclat de Fleurs’, ‘Modern Princess’, ‘My Sin’, ‘A girl in Capri’, designate a specific product line or collection offered under the house brand ‘LANVIN’, which is also displayed on the same bottles and packages.

Furthermore, the alterations to the mark ‘LANVIN’, confined to the slight stylisation and/or colours of the script, as mentioned several times in the evidence, do not constitute an alteration of the distinctive character of the word mark ‘LANVIN’, since the scope of protection of a word mark covers representations in different typefaces and/or colours.

Taking into account the above, the earlier mark ‘LANVIN’ has been proven to have acquired enhanced distinctiveness in France for perfumery in Class 3.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

A likelihood of confusion (including a likelihood of association) 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.

The appreciation of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, the association that can be made with the used or registered sign, and the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified. It must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 18; 11/11/1997, C‑251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).

The goods are at least similar to a low degree, they target the public at large whose level of attention is average.

The signs are visually similar to an average degree, aurally similar to an above-average degree and their conceptual comparison remains neutral.

The earlier mark initially had a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness, however, the earlier mark is now deemed to have acquired enhanced distinctiveness in France for perfumery in Class 3, as can be seen above in section d) of this decision. Indeed, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, and therefore, marks with a highly distinctive character because of the recognition they possess on the market enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).

In addition, account should also be taken of the fact that the average consumers only rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

As regards all the contested goods, which are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods, it must be kept in mind that evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17). In the present case, in particular the above-average degree of aural similarity between the signs and the acquired enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark, are clearly sufficient to offset the at least low degree of similarity between the goods.

In the present case, there is considered to be a likelihood of confusion given all the circumstances and factors of the case. Even though the earlier mark had a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness, the opponent has demonstrated that it has acquired enhanced distinctiveness. The signs only differ in the second and third letters of the earlier mark and the second letter of the contested sign of which the phonemes ‘AN’ and ‘U’ are also phonetically similar in French and the marks have a similar rhythm and intonation. Therefore, the differences, for example, of only two letters in the earlier mark and one in the contested sign, are not sufficient to counteract the overall similarities.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s French trade mark registration No 3 412 207 for the word mark ‘LANVIN’. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

As the earlier right, French trade mark registration No 3 412 207 for the word mark ‘LANVIN’, leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier right invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T‑342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268).

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.

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 applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.

According to Article 109(1) and (7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein. In the present case, the opponent did not appoint a professional representative within the meaning of Article 120 EUTMR and therefore did not incur representation costs.

The Opposition Division

María del Carmen COBOS PALOMO

Chantal VAN RIEL

Marta GARCÍA COLLADO

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.