Defendant: Dangerfield Executive Search Ltd
Case no.: R0303/2016-2
Jurisdiction: European Union
Industry: Fashion
Decision date: 21 Mar, 2017
During the opposition proceedings the opponent filed no claim that the earlier mark had acquired enhanced distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR or submitted any evidence in that respect. It explicitly raised such a claim, and submitted accompanying evidence, for the first time on appeal. As a consequence, the opponent has failed to demonstrate that its earlier mark has enhanced distinctiveness.The conflicting goods and services have been found identical and similar. The marks in question have been found to display a low level of similarity both visually and aurally. Conceptually, for part of the public it will not be possible to make a comparison between the signs, while another part of the relevant public will perceive them as being conceptually different.The Board consequently concludes, just as the contested decision, that there is no likelihood of confusion, and this also applies in respect of the identical goods and services.
Zara
