Likelihood Of Confusion: It's An Italian Elevate Game

spotted a brace of pretty average-looking decisions on Community merchandise marks from the Court of First Instance today. They are

* Case T-185/03 Fusco v Office for Harmonisation inwards the Internal Market . The applicant sought to register equally a Community merchandise score the words ENZO FUSCO, for clothing. Antonio Fusco International opposed, citing its before Community merchandise score ANTONIO FUSCO for the same goods. The Opposition Division as well as the Board of Appeal both constitute that the relastively uncommon Italian surname Fusco, which appeared inwards both signs, was to a greater extent than distinctive than the forenames as well as that, since the goods were identical, the presence of the give-and-take Fusco inwards both signs gave ascension to a plausible likelihood of confusion. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of First Instance (CFI) which ruled that, since Italian consumers to a greater extent than ofttimes than non attributed greater distinctiveness to the surname than the forename, they would proceed inwards heed the cite Fusco as well as would live confused yesteryear different marks for the same goods if they bore that name.

* Case T-169/03 Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation inwards the Internal Market. An application was made to register equally a Community merchandise score the give-and-take score SISSI ROSSI for goods inwards compass xviii (leather goods as well as bags). Sergio Rossi opposed, disputation that at that spot was a likelihood of confusion alongside his before Community as well as international merchandise marks for MISS ROSSI, registered for goods inside compass 25 (footwear). Reversing the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal constitute that the differences betwixt the goods outweighed their few mutual points as well as concluded that at that spot was no likelihood of confusion inside Art.8(1)(b). Sergio Rossi's appeal to the CFI failed since the goods -- though complementary -- were also different as well as their intended purposes were different: shoes were used to wearing apparel feet piece bags were used for carrying objects. It followed that the goods were non interchangeable as well as hence non inwards competition. Also, piece the marks bore a resemblance inwards approximately respects, they shared the mutual Italian surname Rossi which was non prominent inwards the marks. The words ‘Sissi' as well as ‘Miss', which were the dominant elements of the marks, had merely an average, if non slight, flat of similarity. This beingness so, the Board of Appeal was right to jibe that at that spot was no likelihood of confusion.

The fact that these MISS ROSSI shoes are complementary to leather
bags, non similar to them, way the score gete less protection

likes the symmetry of these cases: inwards the first, the fact that the marks shared an uncommon surname meant that confusion was belike while, inwards the second, the fact that the surname was mutual meant that confusion was improbable. However, if it is right that goods which are complementary are non to live treated equally similar, Merpel foresees problems. Fishing rods as well as fish-hooks are alone different products but they are complementary. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 fisherman seeing similar or identical marks on those ii products could live forgiven for assuming that they had the same origin.

Italian male, female and last names here