Greece: Ruling on ladybird trademarks helps clarify notion of conceptual identity
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Greece: Ruling on ladybird trademarks helps clarify notion of conceptual identity

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
windows

Evangelia Sioumala of Patrinos & Kilimiris looks at a recent judgment from the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance that compared conceptually and visually similar images

In a recent case brought before the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance, it was considered whether there is a likelihood of confusion between purely figurative trademarks showing conceptual identity. 

In particular, the contested trademark consisted of an image of a ladybird in a cartoon-like illustration – facing left – filed to cover goods and services in classes 3, 28 and 41 (Figure 1). 

ladybird

On the other hand, the earlier trademark, on which the opposition was based, also consisted of a cartoon-like illustration of a ladybird illustrated – as seen from above – that was registered to cover goods and services in classes 28 and 41 (Figure 2). 

figure 2

In its judgment, the court considered the trademarks to be conceptually and visually similar. In particular, the court considered the illustration of the ladybird in the contested trademark to be highly similar to the one of the earlier mark, as the contested trademark was only differentiated in insignificant elements, namely the number of legs and spots, size of the ladybird and the respective orientation. 

Furthermore, the court ruled that the respective goods and services in classes 28 and 41 were identical and given the fact that the average consumer’s degree of attention regarding these goods and services is low, confusion is highly probable to occur. On the other hand, regarding goods in class 3 covered under the contested trademark, it was held that there was no likelihood of confusion, on the finding that the owner of the earlier mark is not active in the specific field of business. 

In view of the above, it is clear that conceptual identity was decisive in the above mentioned ruling, whereas some differentiations in the figurative elements per se of the trademarks under comparison, were found to play no important role as regards the evaluation of the likelihood of confusion, taking into consideration that the goods and services at issue were identical and refer to a market, where the average consumer’s degree of attention is low. 

The ruling is in line with EU case law, according to which in order for likelihood of confusion to be assessed, the interdependence of all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case should be taken into account. 

 

Evangelia Sioumala

Associate, Patrinos & Kilimiris

E: esioumala@patrinoskilimiris.com

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
Gift this article