5-6-5 Relevant public

It is highly likely that consumers would attribute the positive image which they associate with the opponent’s mark also to the contested mark, and the image of quality of the opponent’s mark would easily be transferred to the mark applied for.

The goods under comparison are similar to a low degree and target the public at large who will pay an average degree of attention when choosing them.

The average consumer only rarely has a chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks and must place their trust in the imperfect picture of them kept in their mind.

The types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR may result from a lesser degree of similarity between the marks in question, provided that it is sufficient for the relevant section of the public to make a connection between those marks that is to say, to establish a link between them.

The relevant public may be led to believe that the goods covered by the marks that are identical or similar to various degrees come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings.

The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.

A trade mark possesses distinctive character if it enables the relevant public to identify the origin of the goods and distinguish them from those of other undertakings.

The similarities between the signs are of such a nature and degree that the consumer will associate the signs, in the sense that encountering one of them will bring to mind the other.

It is clear that the same consumer will be exposed to both of the conflicting marks and, consequently, there is a clear overlap in the relevant publics.

Considering that consumers will only rarely have the opportunity to compare the signs side by side but must instead rely on their imperfect memory, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks on the part of the public.