The owner of the well-known furniture brand "IKEA" was recently unsuccessful in its attempts to invalidate registration of the trade mark "idea", which was also registered in the European Community in relation to furniture. The Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in rejecting IKEA's application.
Mr Walter Waibel, a German citizen, obtained registration of his "idea" figurative mark as a Community trade mark in 2001. The trade mark was registered for a number of goods and services, one of these being furniture.
The initial application by IKEA to OHIM was successful and resulted in Mr Waibel's registration being declared invalid on the basis that it was confusingly similar to IKEA's earlier registered trade marks. OHIM's Board of Appeal reversed this decision on the grounds that, whilst the two trade marks were similar aurally, they were visually and conceptually dissimilar.
Somewhat surprisingly, OHIM's Board of Appeal further held that, in relation to the furniture buying public, any aural similarities between trade marks were not generally that significant. This was based on a view that consumers preferred to examine furniture before purchasing, as their choices were based on functional and aesthetic considerations. The Board of Appeal further stated that, due to the relatively high price of furniture, consumers tended to be observant and take a relatively long time to compare and reflect before making a purchase. This led to the Board of Appeal's decision that there was no likelihood of confusion by the public between the marks.
Further, it should be noted that IKEA's appeal to the CFI in this case was dismissed even though the goods relevant to the two trade marks in question were agreed to be identical. On the facts, the CFI concluded that the marks were visually and conceptually dissimilar with only a low degree of aural similarity.
This case emphasises that the methods by which consumers purchase goods and/or services need to be carefully considered by trade mark owners before taking action against a seemingly confusing trade mark used by a third party. Indeed, this case suggests that OHIM would be more likely to find a likelihood of confusion between trade marks if the relevant goods and/or services are more usually purchased quickly or by a method that does not generally involve the consumer having face to face contact with the goods or services prior to purchase.
Indeed, it appears that the hurdle for trade mark owners seeking to enforce their rights against others in consumer markets will become greater where the relevant goods and/or services are considered larger or more expensive purchases, such as furniture; as consumers will be deemed to pay closer attention to those purchases than with every day items. The likelihood of confusion between marks cannot be considered solely in terms of the aural, visual and conceptual aspects of the marks and the goods or services that are covered by the registration; the method of purchase of goods or services appears to be an equally important factor.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
