Het gebruik van artificiële intelligentie AI door het EUIPO in registratieprocedures

On the basis of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the contested trade markis likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. Similarly, the applicant has not shown that that public would recognise that that mark represented the outline of a Haribo Goldbear gummy bear. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown that the relevant public would recognise, in the mark applied for, the body parts of a bear, such as its ears, arms, legs and head. In addition, the Board of Appeal was right to observe in paragraph 32 of the contested decision that, in view of its simplicity, the mark applied for did not convey a clear message to the targeted public in relation to the wide variety of the goods at issue, but rather would be perceived primarily as a decorative element or an embellishment serving aesthetic purposes. The sign constitutes a flat shape with four wavy sides and four curved angles, with opposite sides of equal length and two vertical sides longer than the other two horizontal sides. As the Board of Appeal found in paragraph 29 of the contested decision, the mark applied for consists of a thick black line that represents the outline of a closed shape with curved sides on a white background.

• In addition, the Board of Appeal was right to observe in paragraph 32 of the contested decision that, in view of its simplicity, the mark applied for did not convey a clear message to the targeted public in relation to the wide variety of the goods at issue, but rather would be perceived primarily as a decorative element or an embellishment serving aesthetic purposes.
• In the present case, the mark applied for represents a two-dimensional geometric figure of no particular complexity.
• In paragraph 49 of the application, the applicant merely asserted, without adducing any evidence in that regard, that it ‘confronted several parts of the relevant consumers’ with the sign at issue, who ‘without exceptions’ stated that that sign was a ‘gummy bear’ or a Haribo Goldbear sweet.
• On the basis of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the contested trade markis likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

The connection that the contested sign might trigger with the earlier reputed mark and the positive image it possesses, would inevitably compel consumers to further explore said brand and the services offered under it. Indeed, the accumulation of all of the above factors makes it quite likely that the contested sign recalls the earlier mark, thus misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value. In paragraph 49 of the application, the applicant merely asserted, without adducing any evidence in that regard, that it ‘confronted several parts of the relevant consumers’ with the sign at issue, who ‘without exceptions’ stated that that sign was a ‘gummy bear’ or a Haribo Goldbear sweet. In the present case, the vegas casino mark applied for represents a two-dimensional geometric figure of no particular complexity. This way, the contested mark will already unfairly benefit from the continuous investments of the opponent in creating and preserving the positive image of its mark.

• On the basis of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the contested trade markis likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
• In the present case, the mark applied for represents a two-dimensional geometric figure of no particular complexity.
• Similarly, the applicant has not shown that that public would recognise that that mark represented the outline of a Haribo Goldbear gummy bear.
• As the Board of Appeal found in paragraph 29 of the contested decision, the mark applied for consists of a thick black line that represents the outline of a closed shape with curved sides on a white background.
• Indeed, the accumulation of all of the above factors makes it quite likely that the contested sign recalls the earlier mark, thus misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value.