EUIPO - Renault SAS v/ UAB Truck master
12 098 C
EUIPO Cancellation Division
Renault SAS v/ UAB Truck master
RENAULT SAS was represented by Cristina Bercial-Chaumier, Attorney at law assisted by Marie Pusel, French and European Trademark Attorney.
An Invalidity action was filed by Renault on the basis of the risk of confusion with its previous MASTER French Registration No. 1551948 on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of the EUTMR against the EUTM Registration TRUCK MASTER (fig.) No. 12 501 687 arguing enhanced distinctiveness of the Prior mark in France.
The Prior mark was protected for motor vehicles and vehicles for locomotion by land, their spare parts or replacement parts not included in other classes in class 12.
The challenged goods were parts and fittings for land vehicles in class 12 and the bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods (excluding the transport thereof), namely parts and fittings for vehicles, enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase those goods in retail stores, wholesale outlets, through mail order catalogues or by means of electronic media, through web sites or television shopping programmes in class 35 and vehicle maintenance and repair in class 37.
The Cancellation Division found that the goods and services involved were partly identical and partly similar to different degrees.
In respect of the degree of attention on the relevant public, it was found that it may vary from average to high when purchasing those goods.
It was found that the marks presented a visual, aural and conceptual similarity residing in the coincidence in the distinctive word MASTER and that, in view of the above, it was likely that the consumers would assume that the contested mark represented a new line or a parallel line of products having their origin on the applicant for cancellation.
In view of all the relevant factors present in the case and also on the principle of interdependence, the action was upheld in connection with all the goods even for those which were similar to a low degree.
The similarity between the signs outweighed the low degree of similarity between the goods and services.
Since the cancellation was successful on the basis on the inherent distinctiveness of mark it was not necessary to assess the enhanced distinctiveness as the result would have been the same.