RRTec sp. z o.o. v EUIPO; Mobotec AB
Date of decision: 14.12.17 Reg 207/2009
The GC upheld the BoA's finding of a likelihood of confusion between the marks pursuant to Art 8(1)(b).
The BoA was correct to find a high degree of visual similarity between the marks. The differences between the marks (being extra 'r', the blue colour and the 'rr' in bold in the mark applied for) were insufficient to eliminate the strong visual similarity.
The BoA was also correct to hold that the marks were phonetically identical for at least a significant part of the relevant public who were unlikely to pronounce the marks differently due to the additional 'r' in the mark applied for.
A conceptual comparison was irrelevant given the words 'rrofa' and 'rofa' were devoid of any meaning.
Therefore given the identity or high similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks and the average distinctive character of the earlier mark, the BoA was entitled to find a likelihood of confusion between the marks.