Boro Terakol Ltd. filed an opposition against all the goods of application for trade mark registration “TERAZID AQUA BLOCK“, entr. № 140192, based on earlier registered trade mark „АКВАСТОП AQUASTOP“, with reg.№ 48822. The applicant Terazid Ltd. is represented by the team of IP Consulting.
The opponent claims that there is identity and similarity between the goods of the compared trade marks. He points out that the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark is the element “АКВАСТОП AQUASTOP” as a whole, as it is a fantasy word that is the result of the original combination of the words AQUA and STOP.
The mere presence of a trade mark on a website is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate genuine use, unless the website also provides information on the place, time and extent of use, or unless such information otherwise provided. In the present case, the evidence presented is not accompanied by additional data. Therefore, it cannot be inferred from the above evidence that the opponent’s trade mark was actually used.
Relevant factors when comparing goods and / or services are their nature, purpose, the fact whether they are complementary or interchangeable, etc. The Opposition Commission of BPO considers that there is no similarity between the goods of the compared trademarks.
THE SIGNS
In general, the overall assessment of the phonetic, visual and semantic similarity of the trade marks should be based on the overall impression they create, taking into account the impact of their distinctive and dominant elements.
Visual similarity – the similarity is due to the fact that the two trade marks consist of the same Latin letters ‘AQUA’, arranged in identical order. The other elements of the trade marks contribute to their visual difference. The most important thing here is that the beginning of the two signs, which in principle mainly draws attention to the perception of the trade marks, is different.
Phonetic similarity – there is a low phonetic similarity between the trade marks. In this case, it is essential that the signs have a different beginning.
Semantic similarity – consumers will perceive the expression “TERAZID AQUA BLOCK” as products designed to stop water supplied or manufactured by Terazid Ltd., with TERAZID being a clear indication of commercial origin.
The compared trade marks “АКВАСТОП AQUASTOP” and “TERAZID AQUA BLOCK” are sufficiently different from each other. The low similarity due to their common AQUA element in this case is not sufficient to conclude that there is a similarity between the signs as a whole.
In the present case, the trade mark applied for falls within the category of specific cases of trade marks containing a trade name in combination with other elements. In general, if one character contains a trade name and another word element, there is a tendency for this additional element to be considered dominant.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above and on the grounds of art. 38d, par. 9 of the LMGI, the opposition commission decided to reject the opposition as unfounded in relation to all the goods in classes 1, 17 and 19.
