SAGA | Decision 2297664 - Support Design AB v. Saga Furs Oyj
Date Published: Oct 1, 2017
OPPOSITION No B 2 297 664
Support Design AB, Brårudsallén 6, 686 25 Sunne, Sweden (opponent), represented by Nihlmark & Zacharoff Advokatbyrå AB, Regeringsgatan 67 4 TR, Stockholm, Sweden (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
Saga Furs Oyj, Martinkyläntie 48, 01720 Vantaa, Finland (applicant), represented by Kolster Oy AB, Salmisaarenaukio 1, 00180 Helsinki, Finland (professional representative).
On 10/04/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 297 664 is upheld for all the contested goods, namely bedroom furniture in Class 20.
2. European Union trade mark application No 12 161 667 is rejected for all the contested goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods and services.
3. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 350.
REASONS:
The opponent filed an opposition against, after a limitation in its scope, some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 12 161 667, namely against all the goods in Class 20. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 8 779 738. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR
A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs and the relevant public.
- The goods and services
The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:
Class 20: Office chairs.
After a limitation of the list of goods and services applied for which was requested on 25/04/2016, the contested goods are the following:
Class 20: Bedroom furniture.
The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or complementary to each other.
The contested bedroom furniture comprises beds, bed legs, wardrobes, dressers or other pieces such as stools, chair or divans. They are considered to be similar to the opponent’s office chairs as they share the same distribution channels and may be manufactured by the same companies which may use the same machinery and know-how for producing different pieces of furniture. They target the same public and to some extent, some of the contested goods, such as decorative chairs, are in competition with office chairs.
- Relevant public — degree of attention
The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.
In the present case, the goods found to be similar are directed at the public at large with a degree of attention which may vary from average to higher than average depending on the price and frequency of purchase of the goods.
- The signs
SAGA | SAGA |
Earlier trade mark | Contested sign |
The signs are identical.
- Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
The signs were found to be identical and the contested goods are similar to those covered by the earlier trade mark. Given the identity of the signs, there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR and the opposition is therefore upheld.
As a result, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 8 779 738. It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.
COSTS
According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.
Since the applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.
According to Rule 94(3) and (6) and Rule 94(7)(d)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.
The Opposition Division
Fabian GARCÍA QUINTO | Ana MUÑIZ RODRIGUEZ | Carmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES |
According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.
The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Opposition Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month from the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.