Likelihood of confusion between 'SÔ:UNIC' and 'SO...?' correctly established

TRADE MARK LAW

General court applied right criterion to establish likelihood of confusion between the sign ‘SÔ:UNIC’ and the family of marks beginning with ‘SO…?’

General court looked at whether consumers were likely to establish a connection between the sign and the family of marks and whether consumers might perceive the former as a new member of the latter.

"35. Such an approach cannot be regarded as incorrect in itself in so far as, in the present case, it initially consisted of ascertaining whether there was an element enabling the mark applied for to be associated with the family of marks relied on in order subsequently to examine, in the context of a global assessment, whether consumers were likely to establish a connection between that mark and that family of marks, and whether there was a possibility that consumers might perceive the former as a new member of the latter.

38. In that regard, it should be noted that, in order to complement its assessment, in paragraph 27 of the judgment under appeal the General Court made reference to the Board of Appeal’s findings, which the appellant had not disputed in its appeal, concerning the degree of similarity between the marks at issue. The General Court emphasised the fact that the Board had drawn attention to differences between the mark applied for and the family of marks relied on relating to, inter alia, the perception of the marks at issue from a conceptual point of view, and explained that the conceptual point of view was an essential element in the context of a family of marks."

IPPT20151015, CJEU, Debonair v OHIM

C-270/14 P - ECLI:EU:C:2015:688