Plaintiff: Volvo Trademark Holding AB
Defendant: Paalupaikka Oy
Case no.: R0776/2018-4
Jurisdiction: European Union
Industry: Cars
Decision date: 03 Mar, 2021
As confirmed by T 356/18 and R 411/2020-1, which concerned almost identical signs to those here, the degree of similarity required under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR is different, and the contested sign here was found to be sufficiently similar to one of the earlier signs for 8(5) to succeed. For the same reasons, it succeeds here too (citing GC judgment and applying it to facts at hand). Reputation has been proven, and govem the use of the (nearly) identical font for the letter ‘V’, which is also the dominant element of the contested sign, the same colours used in the conflicting signs, and the same circular structure, the relevant public will certainly establish a link . There is sufficient resonance triggered between the signs in conflict, such that the leitmotifs conveyed by the earlier rights to consumers will, at least, cause them to be more favourably disposed to purchase the products of the defendant, is reinforced by other information provided by the appellant in its statement of grounds of appeal. In particular, there appears to be a pattern of behaviour by the defendant to ‘sail close to the wind’ in relation to earlier trade marks with a reputation in the motor industry.
VOLVO
What is Section 2(e)(2) Refusal - Primarily Geographically Descriptive?
Can I amend my trademark application in response to an office action?
What is the best way to extend our US trademark protection to the rest of the world?
Do I have to use my trademark in commerce before applying for an EU trademark?
Is there an extra price for responding to the office action?
