NovAtel, Inc v. Novatec Consulting GmbH

NovAtel, Inc


In light of the identity and similarity of the conflicting goods and services, the high degree of aural and conceptual similarity together with at least average visual similarity, taking into account too the imperfect recollection of the relevant public, a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR exists even for the relevant public which displays a high level of attention, regardless of the below average level of inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark. As for the claim regarding peaceful co-existence of the earlier mark with the contested EUTM, the evidence filed in this respect falls far short. , the applicant has not filed any convincing evidence of the way in which the relevant public has allegedly encountered both conflicting signs on the same EU market, nor has it demonstrated that the claimed coexistence of the signs would have been based on the absence of a likelihood of confusion of the relevant public, as is required by the established case-law.

Comparison of Trademarks