The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has partly accepted Apple’s opposition to a trademark application from a Chinese company called Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics, due to concerns that its citrus-shaped logo could benefit from Apple’s reputation in the EU. Here are the details.
Apple wins trademark dispute over citrus-shaped logo, with a warning
How he saw it MacRumorsThe EUIPO rejected Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics’ application to register its citrus-shaped logo for keyboards and other computer-related products, but upheld the company’s application for solar panels.
This case It began last July, when Apple opposed Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics’ trademark application in the EU, arguing that the company’s citrus-shaped logo was too similar to Apple’s own logo.
The logo depicts a round citrus fruit with a leaf pointing to the left, a missing section on the right side, lower segments that look like keyboard keys, and upper segments reminiscent of sun rays. Apple argued that most of those elements evoked its own logo, especially for products related to computers and electronics.
As the EUIPO explains, “the grounds for refusal in Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met:”
- The signs must be identical or similar.
- The opponent’s brand must be renowned. The notoriety must also predate the filing of the contested mark; It must exist in the territory in question and for the products and/or services on which the opposition is based.
- Risk of damage: the use of the contested mark would take undue advantage or damage the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark.
The EUIPO adds that these requirements “are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition (…)”.
Taking this into account, in its decision, the EUIPO said:
However, compliance with all the above conditions may not be enough. The opposition can still be rejected if the applicant proves good cause for the use of the disputed mark.
In the present case, the applicant did not claim to have a justified cause to use the disputed mark. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, it must be presumed that no due cause exists.
The EUIPO goes on to explain that while Apple “enjoys a high degree of reputation among the relevant public in the European Union” for computer-related products, that is not the case “for all products for which a reputation is claimed”:
Therefore, although the signs are only visually similar to a very low degree, the Opposition Division concludes that, upon finding the contested sign in relation to the aforementioned goods in Class 9 – which have, or may have, a close relationship with the goods for which the earlier mark enjoys a high degree of reputation – the relevant consumers are likely to associate it with the earlier mark, i.e. establish a mental ‘link’ between signs.
On the other hand, the contested solar panels for electricity production They are devices designed to convert sunlight directly into electrical energy through the photovoltaic effect. (…) The controversial products do not address the same relevant consumers, since they satisfy completely different needs and have different distribution channels. (…) Therefore, and because these contested products and the opponent’s relevant products for which a reputation has been demonstrated belong to different industries and business sectors that have nothing clearly relevant in common, the Opposition Division considers it very unlikely that the relevant public, upon encountering the contested sign in relation to such services, will remember the earlier mark, even if it enjoys a high degree of reputation.
As a result, the bureau accepted Apple’s opposition to computer-related products due to the possibility that consumers could mentally link the two signs, but allowed Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics to continue branding solar panels.
You can read the EUIPO decision below:
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. Further.
