EUIPO Opposition division concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public between international registration No 1 470 388 and EUTM No 15 977 911.
Warelog, Portugal filed an opposition against ISL Innowacyjne Systemy Logistyczne Sp z o. o., Poland, represented by IP Consulting Ltd. The opposition is about all the goods and services of international registration designating the European Union No 1 470 388 and is based on European Union trade mark registration No 15 977 911.
According to Article 33(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice Classification.
The contested goods buildings of metal (Class 6) and some specific power-operated machines or tools (Class 7) have nothing in common with the opponent’s services in Classes 35 and 42. Therefore, all the goods in Classes 6 and 7 are different to the opponent’s services.
The opponent’s services have nothing in common with the contested services. They differ in nature and purpose and target different relevant publics with different needs. Services are provided by different companies and offered through different distribution channels. They are neither in competition nor complementary.
The earlier mark is a figurative mark consisting of the verbal element ‘log.com’. The whole verbal element will be perceived as a ‘URL’ within the relevant territory due to its ending ‘.com’. This verbal element is nondistinctive has a weak distinctive character in relation to the opponent’s services.
The contested sign is also figurative, consisting of the verbal elements ‘Logi’ and ‘Comb’. The verbal element ‘Logi’ is considered by the Opposition Division as having a normal degree of distinctiveness. The verbal element ‘Comb’ is distinctive for the relevant goods and services.
Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘log’ present in both signs. However, these coinciding letters appear in different settings. The signs also differ in their figurative aspects and colours. Therefore, the signs are visually similar to a low degree.
Aurally, the signs differ in the pronunciation of the letter /i/ and the final /b/ of the contested mark and in the element /dot/ of the earlier sign. These imply differences also in terms of rhythm and intonation due to the different vocalic sequence. Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to an average degree, at most.
The overall structure of the trademarks contributes to the dilution of the similarities. The signs are conceptually not similar, so there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.
For the sake of completeness, it must be mentioned that the opposition must also fail insofar as based on grounds under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR because the signs are obviously not identical.