|
|
|
CAUTARE MARCI INREGISTRATE
CAUTARE MARCI DEPUSE CONFORM NOII LEGI A MARCILOR
75% Returnare fonduri la inregistrarea unei marci de catre UE |
|
75% RETURNARE TAXE PENTRU INREGISTRAREA MARCILOR LA NIVEL COMUNITAR
Fondul pentru IMM-uri al Uniunii Europene oferă sprijin financiar întreprinderilor mici și mijlocii (IMM-uri) cu sediul în Uniunea Europeană (UE) pentru protejarea drepturilor lor de proprietate intelectuală (PI). IMM-urile pot solicita vouchere care vor permite accesul la o rambursare parțială a taxelor plătite Voucherele au valoare de pana la 75 % din taxele achitate pentru cererile de marca si 50 % din cererile pentru desene industriale sau extinderea de marci in tari non UE -dar nu mai mult de 1000 de Euro/marca , si se acorda pe principiul PRIMUL VENIT, PRIMUL SERVIT Cererile se pot depune cererea în perioada 03.02.2025 FONDUL pentru IMM uri dispune de fonduri LIMITATE. Dacă se epuizează fondurile, intervalul de depunere a cererilor va fi închis înainte de data indicată.
Ce conditii trebuie sa indepliniti : 👍 intreprinderea care depune cererea trebuie să fie o microîntreprindere sau o întreprindere mică sau mijlocie (IMM) cu sediul într-un stat membru al UE.
Trebuie să pregătiți datele bancare ale întreprinderii dumneavoastră, împreună cu un extras de cont emis de bancă, în care să fie menționate următoarele detalii: denumirea băncii, pentru a identifica sursa documentului, denumirea întreprinderii, ca titular al contului, codul IBAN complet, cu codul de țară și codul BIC/SWIFT. Trebuie să aveți certificatul de TVA/CIF al întreprinderii, eliberat de autoritatea națională competentă. Codul de identificare fiscală și denumirea întreprinderii înscrise în formularul de cerere pentru Fondul pentru IMM-uri trebuie să fie aceleași cu cele din certificat.
Ce facem noi la www.marcidesene.ro🏁
-Intocmim dosarul personal la IMM-ului-pe baza unei procuri - si il depunem la EUIPO in contul personal - -Obtinem voucher valabil de la EUIPO pentru subventie -dureaza cam 7 zile de la data depunerii dosarului la EUIPO - -Depunem dosarul de marca la Euipo si primim receiptul apoi aveti 30 de zile sa achitati taxa de examinare -Dupa ce achitati taxa de marca ( -850 euro pentru o clasa/900 euro pentru doua clase si apoi 150 euro pentru orice clasa suplimentara https://www.marcidesene.ro/category/clase-nisa/ depunem in 2 luni cererea de subventie pe care EUIPO o vireaza direct in contul IMM ului in termen de o luna de la depunerea cererii
Costuri IMM uri -care nu se deconteaza -onorariu consultant care se defalcheaza astfel : -150 euro +TVA -la inceput in etapa de deschidere si depunere dosar la EUIPO -100 Euro +TVA -la data obtinerii voucherului de la EUIPO si depunerea cererii de marca la EUIPO -100 Euro +TVA -la data primirii subventiei de catre IMM
Speram ca dati curs prezentei oferte si in cazul in care mai aveti intrebari nu ezitati sa ne contactati !
Noi la www.marcidesene.ro SUNTEM AICI SA VA AJUTAM SI SA VA OFERIM CEA MAI BUNA OFERTA SI SOLUTIE IN ACORD CU INTERESELE DUMNEAVOASTRA . |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
SLOTO -SLOTINO 9,28,41(EN) |
 |
DECISION of 05/07/2007 RULING ON OPPOSITION No B 997 413 Opponent: Astra Games Limited Brocastle Avenue Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan CF31 3UX UNITED KINGDOM Representative: Wynne-Jones, Laine & James LLP Essex Place Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1JJ UNITED KINGDOM Trade Mark: SLOTTO a g a i n s t Applicant/holder: Simon Harvey 9 Poets Court, Salthouse Road Clevedon, Avon BS21 7TT UNITED KINGDOM Representative: Contested trade mark: SLOTINO Decision No B 997 413 page : 2 of 7 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE On10/08/2005, the applicant filed application No 4 585 147 to register the word mark “SLOTINO” for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41. The opposition is directed against all goods and services covered by the application. The opposition is based on the following earlier right: Community trade mark No 4 396 388 of the word mark “SLOTTO”, registered for goods in class 28. The opponent bases its opposition on all these goods. The grounds of the opposition are those laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR). The opponent argues that there is a likelihood of confusion because of the similarity of goods and marks in question and therefore the CTM application should be rejected. The applicant did not submit any observations in reply within the time limit. II. DECISION A. ON THE SUBSTANCE 1. Likelihood of confusion According to Article 8(1) CTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: b) if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. a) Comparison of goods and services When making an assessment of similarity of the goods concerned, all relevant factors relating to these goods should be taken into account. These factors include, inter alia, their nature, their purpose and method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (see Canon, paragraph 23). Further factors include the pertinent distribution channels (in particular the sales outlets), the relevant public, and the usual origin of the goods. Decision No B 997 413 page : 3 of 7 The contested goods and services are the following: electronic amusement gaming apparatus; electronic gaming apparatus including electronic audio and visual apparatus; computer systems for on-line games, gambling and betting through communications networks; computer software; computer gaming programs; electronic games and gaming machines; software for gaming and gambling; video and display apparatus for entertainment, gaming and gambling; downloadable games in class 9; games and playthings; apparatus for games; electronic arcade games; coin operated games; electronic computer games; gaming and gambling apparatus and machines; casino games; currency and credit operated slot machines and gaming devices in class 28; provision of entertainment; provision of gaming, gambling and casino facilities; gaming, gambling and casino facilities provided on-line, by means of the Internet or other telecommunications networks; amusements and game machine rental services; gaming machine entertainment services; gaming and gambling services; non-downloadable Internet games; telephone games; arranging competitions in class 41. The opposition is based on the following goods: Gaming and amusement machines and parts and fittings thereof in class 28. Class 9 The applicant’s goods in class 9 cover both games and amusement apparatus and equipment, the latter goods are also expressly destined for playing with. Thus, the goods serve the same purpose (leisure) and are aimed at the same public (mostly children, teenagers and their parents). They are also distributed via the same channels (toy shops and games sections of electronic shops). Therefore, they are considered to be similar despite different classification. Class 28 All the contested goods classified in this class are relating to games and entertainment and therefore have the same purpose as the earlier gaming and amusement machines, i.e. to entertain. Both sets of goods are aimed at the same relevant public, the average consumers and also distributed through the same trade channels. Moreover, the goods are in competition and thus, purchased at the same places. Given the foregoing, the goods are considered to be identical. Class 41 The applicant’s services cannot be comfortably provided without the opponent’s goods (i.e. games by nature) that accompany them. The opponent’s goods are the object of the contested services and form an indispensable part of the provision of entertainment; provision of gaming, gambling and casino facilities. It is common for casinos, gambling facilities, playrooms, etc. to provide or rent gaming and amusement machines. The complementary nature of the goods and services, together with the Decision No B 997 413 page : 4 of 7 overlap of distribution channels or outlets, indicates that the goods and services are similar. b) Comparison of signs In determining the existence of likelihood of confusion, trade marks have to be compared by making an overall assessment of the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities between the marks. The comparison must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice, Case C-251/95 Sabèl BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1997] OJ OHIM 1/98, p. 91, paragraph 22 et seq.). The signs to be compared are the following: SLOTTO SLOTINO Earlier CTM CTM application The earlier trade mark “SLOTTO” is protected in the European Union. Therefore, the whole Community is the relevant territory for comparison. Likelihood of confusion in only one part of the Community is sufficient as a relative ground for the rejection of the application in issue. This results from the unitary character of the Community trade mark (See Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9.3.2005 in case T-33/03, “Hai/Shark”, paragraph 39). There are two word marks written in standard upper case to be compared. They share five letters which are in the same order, four letters at the beginning (“SLOT”) and the identical last letter “O”. The mark in question differ in length, the CTM application has eight letters whereas the earlier mark comprises seven letters. Despite the doubled letter “T” which is not usual in all relevant territories the signs have significant part in common. Moreover, the relevant public tends to attribute the greatest weight to the beginnings of signs which are identical in the present case. Given the foregoing, the Office finds the marks visually similar to a medium degree. Phonetically the signs “SLOTINO” and “SLOTTO” share the sound of letters /slot/. The contested mark is three-syllabic mark whereas the earlier mark has only two syllables in most of the Community languages. In English the marks comprise four and three syllables. Mostly they will be pronounced as /slo/ti/no/ and /slo/to/. However, in Swedish the identical letter will be pronounced differently (/slu/ti/no/ with stress on the second syllable v. /slo/to/). In view of the foregoing, the marks are considered aurally similar to a low degree. The marks are meaningless in all the relevant countries. However the earlier mark might be suggestive of lotto, a type of a game (for example in Dutch, English, Hungarian, Latvian and Swedish). In Italy both marks are likely to evoke slot machines. To this extent the contents of the marks are similar. In view of the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison, the marks are considered to be similar overall. Decision No B 997 413 page : 5 of 7 c) Global assessment It constitutes a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings (see Judgment of the Court of Justice, Case C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Inc[1998], OJ OHIM No. 12/98, page 1407 et seq., paragraph 29.) Likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular a similarity between the trade marks and between the goods or services. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa. Furthermore, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the risk of confusion. Marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character. (See Canon, paragraph 17 et seq.) For the purposes of that global appreciation, the average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. However, account should be taken of the fact that the average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks but must place his trust in the imperfect picture of them that he has kept in his mind. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (Judgment of the Court of Justice Case C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Klijsen Handel BV, OJ OHIM No 12/1999, p. 1585, paragraph 26). As to the distinctive character of the earlier mark “SLOTTO”, even it might evoke slot machines, i.e. the goods in question, the earlier mark as a whole look like a fanciful and strange word. Consequently, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as average in the present case. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration the degree of similarity between the marks, it is likely that a part of relevant public in the relevant territory, i.e. the European Union, could think that the identical and similar goods and services in question, bearing the respective signs, originate from the same or economically linked undertakings. Therefore there is a likelihood of confusion including likelihood of association between the CTM application and the earlier right for all contested goods and the opposition must be fully upheld. Consequently, the CTM application must be rejected in its entirety. B. COSTS According to Article 81(1) CTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees incurred by the other party, as well as all costs. Decision No B 997 413 page : 6 of 7 According to Rule 94(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing the CTMR (OJ OHIM 2-3/95, p. 259), the apportionment of costs must be dealt with in the decision on the opposition. Since the applicant is the losing party in the opposition proceedings, it must bear all costs incurred by the other party in the course of these proceedings. Decision No B 997 413 page : 7 of 7 THE OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECIDES TO: 1. Uphold opposition number B 997 413 for all the contested goods and services. 2. Reject application number 4 585 147 in its entirety. 3. Order the applicant to bear the costs. FIX THE COSTS AS FOLLOWS: The amount of the costs to be paid by the applicant to the opponent pursuant to Article 81(6) CTMR in conjunction with Rule 94(3) IR shall be: Costs of representation EUR 300 Opposition fee EUR 350 _______ Total amount EUR 650 Alicante, 05/07/2007 The Opposition Division Richard THEWLIS Radka STUPKOVÁ Daniel GÁJA |
 |
Inapoi... |
 |
|
|
Cautare marci depuse |
|
Cauta o marca depusa |
|
Cauta o marca in U.E. / Intl. |
|
Cautare marci depuse in anul 2025 |
|
|
|
Cautare desene |
|
Cauta un desen |
|
|
Marci in curs de expirare |
|
|
|
|
|
|