Gepubliceerd op vrijdag 5 april 2013
IEFBE 112
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Monster of Rock

Gerecht EU 23 november 2011, zaak T-216/10 (Monster Cable Products tegen OHIM/Live Nation, inzake MONSTER ROCK)

Gemeenschapsmerk. Oppositieprocedure aanvrage gemeenschapswoordmerk MONSTER ROCK tegen eerder teken in Verenigd Koninkrijk MONSTERS OF ROCK (beide: (concerten, opname audio). Relatieve weigeringsgrond: verwarringsgevaar, soortglijke goederen en gelijke tekens. Monster heeft verschillende betekenissen (frightening creature and to certain concept of excellence), consumenten hebben voorkeur voor de eerste 'enge griezel'-bekenis. Geen fouten gemaakt door OHIM, actie wordt afgewezen.

45. In that regard, it should be noted that certain words or expressions may have multiple meanings. Due to the very general meaning of the marks in question, it is difficult to gauge which meaning will be favoured by the consumer. Thus, the word ‘monster’ may, as the applicant rightly submits, refer both to a frightening creature and to a certain concept of excellence. However, the applicant does not put forward any arguments capable of showing that the consumer will favour the first meaning of the word ‘monster’ in any analysis he may carry out in respect of the mark applied for. In addition, the intervener rightly observes that the word ‘monster’ is capable of having both meanings for each of the two marks in question.

53. In the present case, the Board of Appeal found, rightly, that the goods covered by the Community trade mark application and the earlier mark are identical or similar and that the two marks in question display strong similarities. Therefore, it was not necessary to refer explicitly to the earlier mark’s degree of distinctiveness. Under those circumstances, even if the earlier mark were of weak distinctive character, that fact would not be such as to rule out any likelihood of confusion between the marks concerned.

54. Under those circumstances, it must be held that the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion.
55. Accordingly, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.