|
|
|
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 . |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
TAMARA - AMARA 9,28,41-29,30,32 (EN) |
 |
DECISION of 29/06/2007 RULING ON OPPOSITION No B 978 363 Opponent: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Eckenbergstr. 16 D-45307 Essen Germany Representative: Schmidt, von der Osten & Huber Haumannplatz 28/30 D-45130 Essen Germany Trade Mark: TAMARA a g a i n s t Applicant: Roberto Emilio Beltrán Moreno Alcala, 99-1ºD E-28009 Madrid Spain Representative: Henson & Co. Calle Fortuny, 7 E-28010 Madrid Spain Contested trade mark: AMARA Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 2 of 8 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE On 06/07/2005 the applicant filed application No 4 482 071 to register the word ‘’AMARA’’ as a trade mark for goods in classes 29, 30 and 33. The opponent directs its opposition against all of the goods designated in the above application, namely: Class 29 meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; cheese; meat, sausages, salted foods and cheese, preserves and semi-preserves; charcuterie, pickles; ham; sausages; salted foods; Class 30 coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice; Class 33 alcoholic beverages (except beers), wine, vermouth, liqueurs and spirits. The opposition is based on the Danish trade mark registration No VR 2005 02115 of the word mark ’’TAMARA’’. The mark is registered for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32, namely: Class 29 meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; Class 30 coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; mustard; vinegar; ice; Class 32 beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages. The opponent bases its opposition on all of the goods covered by the above registration. The grounds of the opposition are those laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (hereinafter “CTMR”) (OJ OHIM 1/95, p. 53). The opponent puts forward that the marks in dispute are highly similar visually and phonetically as the only difference between them is the additional letter ‘’T’’ in the earlier mark. The opponent also submits that the second syllable is intonated in both words and that the letter ‘’T’’ is rather weak in sound, especially due to its position before the dominant vowel ‘’A’’. The opponent further indicates that none of the marks has a special meaning in Danish which might help to differentiate between them. The Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 3 of 8 opponent also alleges that the contested goods are in part identical and in part highly similar to the goods protected by the earlier mark. As regards the contested goods in class 33, the opponent submits that they are highly similar to the goods in class 32 protected by the earlier mark because various kinds of drinks are offered together in bars and restaurants and are distributed together in supermarkets or in special shops selling solely beverages. In addition, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages are often mixed and therefore serve the same purpose and are complementary (reference is made to the Boards of Appeal decision of 04/07/2004 in case R 83/2003-4 Cannaabis/Cannabia). In view of the above factors, the opponent claims that there is a high risk of confusion between the marks in dispute. The applicant did not submit any observations in reply to those of the opponent. II. DECISION 1. Likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) CTMR) a) Comparison of goods 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 Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 23). Further factors include the pertinent distribution channels (in particular the sales outlets), the relevant public, and the usual origin of the goods. The goods to be compared are the following: Earlier trade mark: Class 29 meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; Class 30 coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; mustard; vinegar; ice; Class 32 Contested application: Class 29 meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; cheese; meat, sausages, salted foods and cheese, preserves and semi-preserves; charcuterie, pickles; ham; sausages; salted foods; Class 30 coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt, Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 4 of 8 beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages. mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice; Class 33 alcoholic beverages (except beers), wine, vermouth, liqueurs and spirits. Class 29 The earlier mark is registered for the broad categories of goods which constitute the heading of class 29 of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification). It is therefore clear that the applicant’s goods ‘’meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; cheese; meat, sausages, salted foods and cheese, preserves and semi-preserves; charcuterie, pickles; ham; sausages; salted foods’’ in class 29 are covered by the opponent’s specification of goods. Thus, these goods are identical within the meaning of Article 8(1) CTMR. Class 30 The goods ‘’coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; mustard; vinegar; ice’’ designated in the CTM application in the same wording appear in the specification of the opponent’s goods. Thus, these goods are identical. As regards the remaining goods in the contested application, i.e. ‘’salt, sauces (condiments); spices’’, the Office finds them highly similar to the opponent’s goods ‘’mustard; vinegar’’. The Office notes that these goods share the same purpose because they are condiments used to give a special taste to food. In addition, these goods are distributed through the same trade channels and sold in the same retail outlets in a close proximity to each other, e.g. in the sections for seasoning products and condiments. It is also reasonable for the consumer, when being confronted with these goods, to assume that they have the same commercial origin. In view of the above, it is held that the contested goods in class 30 are in part identical and in part highly similar to the opponent’s goods in class 30. Class 33 The Office concurs with the opponent that there is a degree of similarity between the applicant’s goods in class 33, i.e. ‘’alcoholic beverages (except beers), wine, vermouth, liqueurs and spirits’’ and the opponent’s goods in class 32, in particular ‘’beers’’. First, it is common knowledge that beer is an alcoholic drink brewed from malt, sugar, hops, and water and fermented with yeast (see e.g. Collins English Dictionary, 1995). Thus, the applicant’s alcoholic beverages and the opponent’s beers are very similar in nature and have the same intended purpose, as they all are alcoholic beverages which are to be used in the same way and consumed in the same conditions, e.g. on special occasions, for enjoyment and relaxation. Second, these goods are distributed through Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 5 of 8 the same trade channels and sold in the same retail outlets (e.g. grocery stores and alcohol shops) in a close proximity to each other. Furthermore, they can be offered at the same establishments, e.g. restaurants, canteens and bars. Also, for consumers, beer may replace other alcoholic beverages e.g. wine and its consumption may take place in the same social situation as wine, depending on the preferences of the various consumers present before, after or even during meals. Therefore, alcoholic beverages, such as beer and wine, are to a degree interchangeable and in competition (see, to that effect, the Boards of Appeal decision of 18/03/2004 in Case R 2/2002-1, paragraphs 29-31, decision of 04/07/2004 in Case R 83/2003-4, paragraph 21, and decision of 25/04/2007 in Case R 637/2006-4, paragraphs 19-21). Thus, despite the fact that beer and opponent’s alcoholic beverages such as wine, vermouth, liqueurs and spirits are produced from different ingredients and are subject to production processes involving different technology, there are relevant points of contact between them to accept a similarity within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. b) Comparison of the marks In determining the existence of likelihood of confusion, trade marks have to be compared by making an overall assessment of the visual, aural 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 (see Case C-251/95 Sabèl BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1997] ECR I-6191, paragraph 22 et seq.). In the present case, the trade marks to be compared are the following: TAMARA AMARA Earlier trade mark CTM application The earlier mark is protected in Denmark. Therefore, it is the impression that the marks make on the public, and their pronunciation and semantic meaning in that territory which is relevant for their comparison. Both marks are word marks represented in an ordinary typeface. Visually, the only difference between the marks lies in the presence of the letter ‘’T’’ in the beginning of the earlier mark. Although it is true that the beginning of a mark will, in general, have a greater impact in the process of recognising and remembering the mark, in the present case a single difference in the initial letter is not sufficient to make the marks visually different. The Office notes that the marks produces a similar overall visual impression due to the common part ‘’AMARA’’. It has to be noted in this regard that the words are not short in the present case, thus the omission of the letter ‘’T’’ in the contested mark can pass unnoticed by the relevant public. Thus, it is concluded that from the visual perspective the conflicting marks are similar. Aurally, the marks will be pronounced by the relevant public in Denmark as /ta-ma-ra/ and /a-ma-ra/. The only difference between the marks lies in the letter (sound) ‘’T’’ in Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 6 of 8 the earlier mark. The Office notes that this letter will not be particularly audible because it is a voiceless consonant. Thus, taking into account that the words share the same vowel sequence, have the same rhythm and are stressed in the same way (the stress lies on the second syllable), their overall sonority is very close. It is therefore concluded that the conflicting marks are phonetically similar to a high degree. Neither of the marks has any particular meaning in the Danish language. It is plausible that for the majority of the Danish consumers these words would not evoke any semantic associations when viewed in relation to the respective goods covered by the marks. Consequently, the perception of the marks would rest on the visual and phonetic impressions produced by them. On the other hand, it is likely that some part of the consumers would perceive the word ‘’TAMARA’’ as a woman’s first name. However, it is clearly insufficient to consider the conflicting marks being different, as the word ‘’AMARA’’ for the same consumers may evoke the same associations. c) Conclusion 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 that assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings (see Canon, cited above, paragraph 29). Likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR 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, cited above, 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 (see Case C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 26). As to the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation. Therefore, the assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark must rest on its distinctiveness per se. As the word ‘’TAMARA’’ does not have any particular relation with the goods concerned, the distinctiveness of this mark must be seen as normal. Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 7 of 8 As follows from the analysis above, the conflicting trade marks, when considering their overall impression, are very similar visually and aurally as they differ only in one letter (sound). This sole difference is clearly insufficient to make these marks distinguishable one from another. Furthermore, the marks do not evoke any particular conceptual associations in the relevant territory which might counteract their visual and aural similarity. Further, as held under section 1 a) of the present decision, the contested goods are in part identical and in part similar, to a higher or lower degree, to the goods protected by the earlier mark. The Office also notes that the respective goods are foodstuffs and beverages that are targeted at the public at large. Therefore, the level of attentiveness of the relevant public is to be regarded as average. Thus, under the principle of the interdependence set about above, the degree of similarity between the marks, in conjunction with the average degree of distinctiveness, is sufficient to establish that the relevant consumer would think that the above goods are manufactured by the same undertaking or, as a case may be, by economicallylinked undertakings. Taking into account that the marks are highly similar and they refer to the same and similar goods, it is very likely that the consumer in the relevant territory will consider the conflicting marks as having the same commercial origin. Furthermore, it has to be noted that the consumer has only occasionally the opportunity to carry out a direct comparison of the various trade marks but must rely on his imperfect mental image of them (see, Lloyd, cited above, paragraph 26). It is therefore concluded that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public in the territory where the earlier mark is protected, i.e. in Denmark. As a consequence, the CTM application is to be rejected on the grounds of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR for all the contested goods, i.e. in its entirety. 2. 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. According to Rule 94(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing the CTMR (hereinafter ‘’CTMIR”) (OJ OHIM 2-3/95, p. 258), as amended, 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. THE OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECIDES TO: 1. Uphold opposition No B 978 363 for all the contested goods. 2. Reject CTM application No 4 482 071 in its entirety. Decision on opposition No B 978 363 page: 8 of 8 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) CTMIR shall be: Representation fee EUR 300 Opposition fee EUR 350 _______ Total amount EUR 650 The Opposition Division Agnes SZANYI FELKL Normunds LAMSTERS Monica IBAÑEZ LAJO |
 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|