Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print
Danubia Patent and Law Office LLC

Likelihood of confusion decision draws on ECJ case law

Newsletters

19 October 2020

Intellectual Property Hungary

Facts
Comment


Facts

The applicant filed the word combination KIWI TV in Classes 35, 41 and 42. The opponent, the owner of the EU mark PIWI + registered in the same classes, requested that the application be rejected.

The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) rejected the application. It referred to the general impression when comparing the two marks, referring to its own case law and that of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – namely, Lloyd (C-9/97). The HIPO considered the word element of the device and word mark to be dominant and stated that in respect of the word element, the difference appeared only in the first syllables. Besides the visual similarity, the phonetic similarity was also found to be significant.

The opponent's mark (ie, PIWI +) makes no sense for Hungarian consumers, which is why it can be considered a novelty word, which excludes conceptual similarity. Comparing the list of goods of the two marks, the HIPO found that they were partially identical and partially similar.

The applicant requested a Metropolitan Tribunal review of the HIPO's decision, but it was rejected. The latter agreed with the HIPO regarding the possibility of confusion. The Metropolitan Tribunal held that the HIPO had correctly identified the dominant elements in the two marks. In respect of visual similarity, it could be stated that the first parts of the two marks (KIW and PIW) were similar except for their first syllables. Regarding the phonetic similarity, there was only one syllable which was different in the two marks, the two vowels were identical. With reference to Lloyd, the Metropolitan Tribunal said that as 'w' is rare in Hungarian, it can be supposed that consumers would remember that element rather than other parts of the words.

The Metropolitan Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal (8 Pkf 25 09/2019).

Comment

The HIPO and the Metropolitan Tribunal referred to ECJ case law (ie, Lloyd and CANON) with respect to the similarity of marks and goods. The examination of written and phonetic similarity provided a convincing result: a conflict of interest.

It is not exceptional for the HIPO and the Hungarian courts to follow the methods established in EU case law. While it seems likely that the HIPO and the Metropolitan Tribunal would have come to the same conclusion without referring to ECJ case law, the guidance was useful for the development of a unified EU doctrine and case law.

For further information on this topic please contact Alexander Vida at Danubia Patent & Law Office LLC by telephone (+36 1 411 8700) or email (vida@danubia.hu). The Danubia Patent & Law Office LLC website can be accessed at www.danubia.hu.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Author

Alexander Vida

Alexander Vida

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

More from this firm

  • Lack of distinctiveness of word combination
  • Deception and bad faith in trademark applications
  • Non-registrability of descriptive names
  • Every claim of opposition must be examined
  • Hungarian authorities deem device mark SPIRIT to be misleading

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2021 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *