Plaintiff: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC
Defendant: YILDIZ HOLDING ANONIM SIRKETI
Case no.: R2257/2017-2
Jurisdiction: European Union
Industry: Food and Drink
Decision date: 07 Apr, 2018
The appeal was partially upheld. The opponent has proven use for OREO 'biscuits'. The goods at stake are partly identical, partly similar and partly dissimilar. The earlier mark 'OREO' is almost entirely incorporated in the second verbal element of the contested sign 'ÜLKER ONEO'. There are no meanings or striking graphic features to separate clearly the signs in the consumer’s minds. In addition, the biggest difference between the signs, the first verbal element of the contested sign is not placed before ‘ONEO’, but above it, and therefore, it will not necessarily be read first. The level of attention is low for the goods at issue and it has been proven that the earlier mark possesses a high degree of distinctiveness among the consumers for biscuits. There is likelihood of confussion in relation to the goods found to be identical and similar. The Board cannot rely on the evidence submitted to prove reputation to conclude that the earlier marks are known by a significant part of the public. Although the opponent provided documents enabling to conclude a certain degree of awareness, the evidence in its entirety is not sufficient to prove that the opponent’s mark is reputed in the relevant territory.
OREO
ONEO
Are there any follow-up fees I should know about when registering a trademark?
How can I overcome a Section 2(e)(4) refusal of my trademark application?
Is it possible to convert an EU trademark into a member trademark?
If I own a trademark in one country, is it valid in another country as well?
Is there drawback to registering a trademark under a personal name?
