The European Union recognizes 24 official languages, alongside numerous speakers of other languages, such as Russian, which raises potential concerns regarding the similarity of translated trademarks. In a notable case, the General Court addressed the issue of trademarks that included the English and Russian phrases for "may tea," concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two. Schweppes International Ltd successfully registered four figurative trademarks related to tea-based beverages, while May OOO held an international registration for ‘майский чай’ (Russian for "may tea") in several EU countries. May challenged Schweppes' trademarks based on the potential for consumer confusion. Initially, the EUIPO's Cancellation Division dismissed May's invalidity claims, but the Board of Appeal later sided with May and invalidated Schweppes' trademarks. Schweppes subsequently appealed to the General Court. In its ruling, the General Court overturned the Board of Appeal's decision, affirming that consumers would typically engage with the brands at an average level of attention and distinguishing the goods as partly identical and partly similar. The Court emphasized that the figurative elements of the trademarks were either minimally distinctive or purely decorative, meaning that consumers would likely focus on the word elements instead. It was determined that while the terms share a conceptual meaning, they differ visually and phonetically, leading to a low likelihood of confusion. The Court noted that any commonality between the words would not significantly influence consumer perception due to their descriptive nature. Moreover, the General Court clarified that linguistic differences cannot solely negate conceptual similarity, although the public's familiarity with both languages impacts immediate recognition. While acknowledging the conceptual identity of the trademarks, the judges concluded that this alone was insufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion, particularly given the significant visual and phonetic dissimilarities. The Court's decision raises questions about the potential for varying interpretations based on different public perceptions in other EU member states.
This news is summarized and processed by the IP Topics artificial intelligence algorithm.
Read the full article on the original webpage: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/general-court-conceptual-identity-in.html
The cover image belongs to the source website and is used as an integral part of the summary of the reference article.