{"id":1537,"date":"2022-11-25T13:56:27","date_gmt":"2022-11-25T13:56:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/?p=1537"},"modified":"2022-11-25T15:26:30","modified_gmt":"2022-11-25T15:26:30","slug":"newsletter-no-42","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/news\/newsletter-no-42\/","title":{"rendered":"Newsletter No. 42"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

DECISIONS OF THE ESTONIAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BOARD OF APPEAL<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/g><\/svg><\/div>\n\n

I OPPOSITIONS<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Decision No. 2081-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Earlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NUTZ<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to the granting of legal protection to trademark \u201c<\/strong><\/em>NUTS ON +<\/em><\/strong> device\u201c <\/em><\/strong>(accelerated procedure).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opponent considers that the applicant\u2019s trademark \u201cNUTS ON <\/strong>+<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>device<\/strong>\u201c is so similar that there is a likelihood of confusion with the opponent\u2019s earlier marks \u201cNUTZ<\/strong>\u201d. In addition, the opponent finds that the protection of the applicant\u2019s trademark seeks to cover goods and services identical and of the same type as the goods and services covered by the opponent\u2019s trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Patent Office forwarded the notice of filing of the opposition to the proprietor of the opposed trademark. The owner has not nominated their representative; thus, the Board applies the accelerated procedure. Under these circumstances, the Board will, in the final proceedings, grant the application without giving reasons for its decision, in so far as it is not manifestly unfounded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was sustained.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Decision No. 1939-o<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Earlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEBICARD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEOCARD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to registration of the trademark \u201c<\/strong><\/em>NEOCARD<\/em><\/strong>\u201d<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opponent found that all the applicant\u2019s goods are included in the opponent\u2019s goods \u201cpharmaceutical and veterinary supplies, except hormone preparations\u201d. Further, the applicant\u2019s goods \u201cfood supplements to support the health of the heart and blood vessels and nutritional supplements consisting of microelements\u201d are identical to the opponent\u2019s goods \u201cmedical dietary substances, children’s food\u201d. According to the Board, the goods of the opposed trademark can be considered identical to the goods of the earlier trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The elements \u201cNE\u201d and \u201cCARD\u201d of both marks are identical. In regard to the latter, one may make a connection with a card (e.g., “ID-card”) or – in the context of medicine and healthcare – with the words \u201ccardiologist\u201d, \u201celectrocardiogram\u201d etc., in which that element means heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In general, the consumer does not have the opportunity to compare products and brands marked with these two trademarks, and they must rely on the incomplete image left in their memory from a previous encounter with the respective trademark. Since there is a higher risk involved with the misuse of drugs as well as dietary substances, the variation in the middle of the word is especially negligible when assessing the visual difference of the trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The average consumer does not phonetically distinguish the marks by their individual different letters but proceeds from the pronunciation of the mark as a whole which, according to the Board, is rather similar in the case of the trademarks in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the identity of the goods in class 5 and the high degree of similarity of the trademarks, the Board estimates there is a likelihood of confusion and association by consumers, including the likelihood that the goods in question will be considered to originate from the same undertaking or related undertakings that have updated their trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was sustained.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Decision No. 2088-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Earlier trademarks<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OPTIBET<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optibet – p\u00f5nevate elamuste kodu<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OLIMPBET<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to the granting of legal protection to trademark \u201c<\/strong><\/em>OLIMPBET<\/em><\/strong>\u201c <\/em><\/strong>(accelerated procedure).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opponent considers that the applicant\u2019s trademark \u201cOLIMPBET<\/em><\/strong>\u201c is so similar that there is a likelihood of confusion with the opponent\u2019s earlier marks \u201cOPTIBET<\/em><\/strong> \u201c and \u201cOptibet – p\u00f5nevate elamuste kodu<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (\u201chome of exciting experiences\u201d in English). In addition, the opponent finds that there is no dispute as to the identity of the services, as all the trademarks in question cover the services of \u201cgambling and their organisation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Patent Office forwarded the notice of filing of the opposition to the proprietor of the opposed trademark. The owner has not nominated their representative; thus, the Board applies the accelerated procedure. Under these circumstances, the Board will, in the final proceedings, grant the application without giving reasons for its decision, in so far as it is not manifestly unfounded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was sustained.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Decision No. 2038-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Earlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INNOVET<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNOVET<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to registration of the trademark \u201c<\/strong><\/em>UNOVET\u201c<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board considers that, although there are certain visual and phonetic similarities between the marks \u201cUNOVET\u201d and \u201cINNOVET\u201d, the marks are sufficiently different, i.e. in general impression and taking into account their distinctive and dominant parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the consumer generally perceives the trademark as a whole and does not analyse its various details, the Board highlights that, according to the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the consumer still divides into parts a mark where its compound words have meaning for the consumer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of whether the consumer perceives the element \u201cINNO\u201d as a word referring to innovation and the element \u201cUNO\u201d as a word referring to the number \u201c1\u201d, or whether they perceive these elements as male names, the parts \u201cINNO\u201d and \u201cUNO\u201d are different from a semantic point of view, according to the Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board finds that the consumer perceives the element \u201cVET\u201d in the context of veterinary-related goods of class 5 as an abbreviation of the word “veterinarian”, i.e. a trademark related to the treatment of animals. To the extent that this part of the word is not in a dominant position or positioned in the first half of either of the trademarks under consideration, the Board considers that the element \u201cVET\u201d cannot be a factor causing confusion between the trademarks. The Board emphasizes that according to well-established case law, when assessing the similarity of trademarks, as a rule, it is the beginning part of a mark that holds greater weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although in this case the comparable class 5 goods can be treated as identical, considering that the comparable trademarks of the opponent and the applicant are sufficiently different as a whole and especially considering the semantic difference of the trademarks, the Board does not find a likelihood of confusion, including association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was dismissed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/div>\n\n

The material provided in this newsletter is for informational purpose only and does not contain legal advice.
For additional information please contact our patent agency:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patendib\u00fcroo TURVAJA O\u00dc
Liivalaia 22
Tallinn 10118
Estonia<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

turvaja@turvaja.ee<\/a>
Phone: +372 6 403 109<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We invite you to have a look at the 42nd issue of Turvaja newsletter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"class_list":["post-1537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1537"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1537\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1559,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1537\/revisions\/1559"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}