Trade Mark Inter Partes Decision (O/189/12)

41. In assessing the likelihood of confusion I must adopt the global approach
advocated by case law and take into account the fact that marks are rarely recalled
perfectly, the consumer relying instead on the imperfect picture of them he has kept
in his mind. 5
I must also keep in mind the average consumer for the goods, the
nature of the purchasing process and have regard to the interdependency principle
i.e. a lesser degree of similarity between the respective trade marks may be offset by
a greater degree of similarity between the respective goods and vice versa.
42. I have found that the marks share a reasonably high degree of visual and (at
least) a reasonable degree of aural similarity and have found there to be a
reasonably high degree of conceptual similarity. I have also identified a normal level
of distinctive character in the opponent’s earlier mark. In respect of the goods I have
concluded that the parties’ goods are identical according to the principles in Meric. I
have identified the average consumer, namely a member of the general public or a
trader who buys hair care preparations. I have concluded that the purchasing act will,
generally, be visual but may include an aural element in the case of goods displayed
behind counters and orders placed by telephone. The purchase will involve a
reasonable degree of care and attention, given that the average consumer will be
selecting according to their own requirements and is purchasing a product to use on
the person.
43. Taking all the above factors into account, and considering the marks as a whole,
and the nature of the purchasing process, I conclude that the differences between
the marks are not sufficient to outweigh the obvious similarities. It is clear from
decisions such as joined cases T-183/02 and T-184/027 6
that the first parts of words
catch the attention of consumers. In the context of identical goods and taking into
account imperfect recollection, I find the average consumer is likely to mistake one
mark for the other i.e. there would be direct confusion. Even if I am wrong in this
regard, I find that the average consumer would consider the goods to come from
economically linked undertakings, i.e. there would be indirect confusion.
44. The opposition having succeeded under 5(2)(b) it is not necessary for me to
make an assessment under sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the Act. However, for the sake
of completeness I have briefly considered both grounds below:
The objections based upon section 5(3) and 5(4)(a)
45. In its submissions the applicant said:
“8. Although the Applicant accepts that the Opponent’s evidence shows use of
the Opponent’s Mark in relation to goods in classes 8, 9 and 11, specifically
hand-held hairdryers and hair stylers (straighteners/curlers/tongs), it does not
5 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Klijsen Handel B.V paragraph 27
6
II – 965, paragraph 81
– (MUNDICOR) [2004] ECR
12