Cisco Technology, Inc. v. syscovery solve & serve GmbH

The most distinctive element of the contested sign is ‘SYSCOVERY’. For the relevant public in the EU, who is involved in the acquisition of IT-related goods or services, the semantic closeness of the made-up word ‘SYSCOVERY’ with the concepts of ‘system’, ‘recovery’ or ‘discovery’ will not go unnoticed, and will contrast with the term ‘CISCO’, which will be considered a fanciful element for the majority of the relevant public in the EU, and arbitrary for the rest. The evidence submitted does not allow the Board to draw any conclusion as to the knowledge of the mark relied upon among the relevant public in the EU for the relevant goods and services. The Board considers that the signs at issue maintain the necessary distance so that there is no likelihood of confusion although the goods and services in conflict are identical or similar and the level of attention is, for some of the goods, average. The absence of a likelihood of confusion will be enhanced in relation to the part of the public who will not understand the verbal elements 'Xaas' and 'Booster' in the contested sign, as they will further increase the differences between the signs at issue. Since reputation is a sine qua non for an opposition to be well founded based on Article 8(5) EUTMR, and since it has not been proven that earlier marks No 644 732 ‘CISCO’, No 3 360 849 ‘CISCO’ and No 6 751 903 ‘CISCO’ enjoy reputation, the opposition must also be rejected insofar as that ground is concerned.