Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM and DaimlerChrysler AG

[2006] C-361/04

Case summary last updated at 01/02/2020 16:19 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM and DaimlerChrysler AG

D sought to register French trade mark ‘Picaro’ in relation to vehicles; C, estate of Pablo Picasso, sought to block registration, on grounds that earlier TM ‘Picasso’ already existed in respect of vehicles – and that thus marks and goods were similar, and would cause confusion amongst relevant public. Held:
 
·       See notes.
·       Is true that members of public viewing D’s mark post-purchase would pay far less attention to it than purchaser (and therefore be likely to be confused)
Ø  However this does not mean there is confusion
 
Facts
·       Relative ground of refusal rejected
·       Two reasons:
1)     Nature of goods means that consumer will inspect them closely before buying
-        i.e. goods in question (cars) are highly technological
-        thusaural/visual differences are less important
2)     Conceptual differencesoutweigh aural and visual similarities between signs
-        Picasso is well known painter, whereas Picaro has no meaning outside Spain
-        Reputation of Picasso means consumers will inevitably think of him when looking car

Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM and DaimlerChrysler AG crops up in following areas of law