.png){kind=icon}
13910160652.png){kind=icon}
Wine in Black finds CTM fortune at European court
font-size:
share to:
The EU’s General Court has overturned the rejection of a Community trademark (CTM) application for the phrase ‘Wine in Black’, stating that it does not cause confusion with a Portuguese wine brand.
The case concerned German company Wine in Black’s attempt to register a CTM for the name of its company to cover alcoholic beverages.
It was filed in 2012 at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), but Portuguese wine maker Quinta do Noval-Vinhos opposed the CTM later that year.
Quinta opposed the applied-for mark on the basis that it would cause a likelihood of confusion with its own CTM, ‘Noval Black’, and covering the same services as Wine in Black’s.
In June 2013, Quinta’s opposition was upheld and the CTM application was rejected again by OHIM’s First Board of Appeal in March 2014.
But on May 21, the General Court reversed the appeal board’s decision, stating that the marks were not similar on both phonetic or visual grounds.
Furthermore, the General Court said that ‘Noval’ does not exist in the English language and therefore there would not be confusion.
The court annulled OHIM’s decision to reject the application and requested OHIM pay the legal costs of both parties.
The case concerned German company Wine in Black’s attempt to register a CTM for the name of its company to cover alcoholic beverages.
It was filed in 2012 at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), but Portuguese wine maker Quinta do Noval-Vinhos opposed the CTM later that year.
Quinta opposed the applied-for mark on the basis that it would cause a likelihood of confusion with its own CTM, ‘Noval Black’, and covering the same services as Wine in Black’s.
In June 2013, Quinta’s opposition was upheld and the CTM application was rejected again by OHIM’s First Board of Appeal in March 2014.
But on May 21, the General Court reversed the appeal board’s decision, stating that the marks were not similar on both phonetic or visual grounds.
Furthermore, the General Court said that ‘Noval’ does not exist in the English language and therefore there would not be confusion.
The court annulled OHIM’s decision to reject the application and requested OHIM pay the legal costs of both parties.
-
Previous：
-
Next：
Click Close