Similarity of goods and services designated by Community Trademarks
26.10.2002
Two appeals relating to opposition division decisions allow to illustrate the comparison of goods as it is studied by the OHIM.
Two appeals relating to opposition division decisions allow to illustrate the comparison of goods as it is studied by the OHIM.1) Baby carriages / clothing for babiesIn the case **1**, the 4th Board of Appeal has considered these goods similar because they have :- same destination : babies (end users) ;- same purchasing public : the parents ;- same distibution channels and outlets, including specialised shops, where the parents will find enverything needed for babies.They are also complementar : "there can be complementarity when a product satisfies a need that can be associated mentally to another need. A baby's cradle satisfies a need (that the baby sleeps) that can be associated to the need satisfied by a baby's pyjama or body (that the baby wears clothing for the night).".The OHIM has underlined that the difference of international classes (12 for baby carriages, 25 for clothing) is not relevant.2) Milk products, flour and preparations made of cereals / foodstuff for animalsIn case **2**, the 4th Board of Appeal has considered that these goods are not similar even if they have :- the same end users, who are defined here as the goods buyers ;- the same raw materials ;- the same nature.Indeed, they have different outlets. Even when they are sold in supermarket, these goods are presented in separate shelves. The OHIM also underlines that foodstuff for animals are very often sold un specialised chops, e.g. pet shops, which do not sell foodstuff for human consumption such as flour or milk product.The OHIM underlines that the fact that the goods are destined to human or animal consumption is here the decisive factor.
