I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
—
2013/C 9/56
Language of the case: German
Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
—set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety;
—grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court.
The General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in finding there to be a likelihood of confusion between ‘f@ir Credit’ and ‘FERCREDIT’.
Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, there is a clear visual difference in the overall impressions of the two signs. Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that the signs in dispute relate to financial services, which usually have significant financial consequences for their users. Thus, it is to be assumed that the average consumer will examine these signs particularly carefully and are highly likely to recognise the differences between them. However, the General Court did not adequately examine that circumstance.
On a correct assessment of that circumstance and the differences in the overall impression of both signs there are no relevant similarities between the signs.
—
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
—
* * *