Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM and DaimlerChrysler AG [2006] C-361/04

• Defendant sought to register French trade mark ‘Picaro’ in relation to vehicles.

• Claimant, 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

• Is true that members of public viewing Defendant’s mark post-purchase would pay far less attention to it than purchaser (and therefore be likely to be confused)

  • 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, thus aural / visual differences are less important

  2. Conceptual differences outweigh 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