\u201cKOCHARI + device\u201c<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Board agrees with the opponent that the applicant\u2019s mark \u201eKOCHARI + device\u201c is similar to the opponent\u2019s marks \u201cKOCH\u201d and \u201cKoch + device\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The applicant’s mark contains more design elements compared to the opponent’s marks, but the word element \u201cKOCHARI\u201d is displayed in large letters, prominently in the center of the mark. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Board considers that the comparable trademarks can also be considered phonetically similar. The applicant has not provided convincing arguments or evidence as to why the same consumer should pronounce the opponent\u2019s mark as [kohh] on the one hand and the applicant\u2019s mark as [kochaar] on the other hand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the applicant has pointed out, the word \u201ckochari\u201d refers to a folk dance from the Armenian highlands. At the same time, the applicant himself admits that the average Estonian consumer probably does not know this meaning. The Board therefore finds that the average Estonian consumer perceives both the word \u201cKOCH\u201d and the word \u201cKOCHARI\u201d as meaningless words, and due to the lack of meaning, the opponent\u2019s and the applicant’s trademarks are therefore not semantically comparable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The comparable goods (alcoholic beverages) are of the same type, to a large extent identical, and in the Board\u2019s opinion there is a likelihood of confusion, including association. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The opposition was sustained.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nDecisions No.<\/strong> 2089-o and 2013-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Earlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BOHLT<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u200bBOLT<\/strong>\u200b<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nOpposition to registration of the trademark <\/em>\u201cBOLT\u201c<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe comparable trademarks \u201cBOHLT\u201d and \u201cBOLT\u201d are visually and phonetically similar. Semantically, i.e. conceptually, the comparable trademarks are rather different, as the trademark \u201cBOHLT\u201d is known to have no meanings, while the trademark \u201cBOLT\u201d may be perceived as an English word with several possible meanings in Estonian (e.g. bolt, arrow, lightning). Since the opponent\u2019s earlier mark is a meaningless word, it is precisely the opponent\u2019s mark that has a stronger inherent distinctiveness than the applicant\u2019s mark, the conceivable meanings of which may suggest the goods being marked. Overall, the opposed marks are similar based on their visual and phonetic similarity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Comparable goods (vehicles) are of the same type, largely identical. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The applicant of a later trademark cannot limit the scope of the exclusive right of the owner of the earlier trademark based on the use of his mark but can acquire the exclusive right to his own trademark only in the case and to the extent that the contested trademark does not conflict with the earlier trademark. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consumers who do not have the opportunity to compare the trademarks in the market situation may consider the push-bikes and bicycles or scooters offered by the applicant as coming from the opponent, who has a valid exclusive right to use its trademark on these goods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The oppositions were sustained.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nDecision No.<\/strong> 2025-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\u200bEarlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n
XOX<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u200bVOX<\/strong>\u200b<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nOpposition to registration of the trademark <\/em>\u201cVOX\u201c<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Board does not agree with the opponent that the goods of the opposed trademark (generally milk, coffee, and sugar) compete with or complement the goods of the earlier trademark (generally meat products, processed fruits and vegetables, fatty sandwich toppings, sweets, bakery products and flour products of different origins). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Goods are complementary when they are closely related to each other, so that one is inescapably necessary or important for the use of the other, which is why consumers may believe that these goods are manufactured, or these services are provided by the same company. The applicant\u2019s goods are not necessary for the use of the opponent\u2019s goods or vice versa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Board is of the opinion that the nature of the comparable goods is different and that the opponent\u2019s goods do not replace the applicant\u2019s goods or vice versa, nor do they compete with them in any other way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since the opposed trademark is visually similar to the earlier mark by a low degree but phonetically and semantically different from it, the comparable marks are ultimately different. The opponent has not presented statements or evidence from which it is evident that its trademark has a reputation or heightened distinctiveness. According to the Board, there is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The opposition was dismissed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nDecision No.<\/strong> 2180<\/strong>-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Earlier trademarks<\/p>\n\n\n\n
APPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAPPLE TRADE IN<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAPPLE CASH<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAPPLE CARD<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAPPLE DAILY CASH<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u200b<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\u200b<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Opposition to registration of the trademark <\/em>\u201cAPPLEHEAD + device\u201c<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe opponent is of the opinion that the services (in classes 36, 40 and 42) of the opposed trademark are identical or similar to the services of the opponent\u2019s previous trademarks, and the Board agrees with the opponent\u2019s views. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The distinctive and dominant element of all earlier trademarks is the word \u201cAPPLE\u201d. The same word also appears in the composition of the opposed mark, at the beginning of its verbal, dominant and more memorable element \u201cAPPLEHEAD\u201d. The same part of the word is also pronounced identically and, being in a dominant position, makes the comparable trademarks phonetically similar. The element \u201cAPPLE\u201d is very likely understandable to the Estonian consumer. The applicant\u2019s explanation that the concept of his trademark is related to the name of an old breed of Siamese cat, which is emphasized by the design element of the opposed trademark, is not very well known to the average consumer, and the emergence of a perceived connection with the cat breed is rather unlikely, according to the Board. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Board also considers that the applicant has not submitted any statements or evidence that refute or call into question the arguments and evidence of the opponent, even though the existence of such a possibility has been explained to him and the deadline for submitting the opinion has been given. Among other things, it can be assumed that the applicant does not wish to object to the opposition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The opposition was sustained. <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nOne of the members of the Board dissented in the matter, finding that the opposition was not justified. In their opinion, the comparable trademarks are not semantically, phonetically, and visually similar to such an extent that there could be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the consumer, as the word \u201cAPPLEHEAD\u201d in combination with the image of a Siamese cat is significantly different from the \u201cAPPLE\u201d trademarks.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nII Appeals<\/strong><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nDecision No.<\/strong> 2116<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong>-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Disputed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-3.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nAppeal against the refusal to grant legal protection to the trademark \u201cEMPOWERING INNOVATION TOGETHER + device\u201d.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Board agrees with the Patent Office that due to the meanings of the English words that make up the trademark \u201cEMPOWERING INNOVATION TOGETHER\u201d, in the context of the class 41 services covered by the trademark application, the applicant\u2019s trademark is descriptive of the relevant services. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The applicant\u2019s mark is completely devoid of design elements that could divert the consumer\u2019s attention from the descriptive and indistinguishable meaning of the word element. The Board finds that even if all consumers do not know the exact meaning of potentially the most complex and less common word – empowering – of the three words included in the applicant\u2019s trademark, the consumer nevertheless recognizes the root word \u201cpower\u201d contained in this word, knows its meaning in Estonian, and perceives the conveyed message as something that talks about giving power or authority to innovation together. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The applicant has pointed out that its trademark is registered in 30 countries around the world. The Board considers that if the applicant\u2019s trademark has been considered registrable in English-speaking countries, this has been done based on a different practice in dealing with the descriptiveness of trademarks in the respective countries. The Board adds that, based on WIPO data, registration of the applicant\u2019s trademark has also been refused in many countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The appeal was rejected.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n