Verschillende IT-diensten voor Gerecht EU eenzelfde soort diensten
Gerecht EU 16 oktober 2013, zaak T-388/12 (Singer / OHMI - Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)) - dossier
Gemeenschapsmerk - Door houder van woordmerk „CORDIO” voor diensten van klasse 42 ingesteld beroep tot vernietiging van beslissing R 1842/20112 van de tweede kamer van beroep van het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (BHIM) van 10 juli 2012, houdende afwijzing van het beroep tegen de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling, waarbij de inschrijving van dit merk in het kader van de oppositie van de houder van het woordmerk „CORDIA” voor de diensten van de klassen 36, 37 en 42 is geweigerd. Het beroep wordt afgewezen; de verschillende IT-diensten zijn toch eenzelfde soort diensten.
33 The applicant acknowledges the identical nature of the ‘creation of web pages’ services covered by the mark applied for and the ‘creating and maintaining websites for others’ services covered by the earlier mark, but claims that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the services of ‘creating and maintaining websites for others’ includes the other services covered by the mark applied for. She submits that the other services covered by that mark are different. Moreover, she claims that the services covered by the marks at issue, including those which are identical, are provided in different sectors – in this case, the tourism sector and the real property sector.
34 However, the applicant’s arguments cannot succeed. First, as the Opposition Division, whose decision was upheld by the Board of Appeal, found, the services covered by the two marks are of the same nature in that they are information technology services, have the same purpose, which is to create certain products linked to computing, and are usually provided by the same companies. It follows from this that they are similar. Moreover, the services of ‘consultancy with regard to the design of homepages and Internet pages’, ‘homepage and web-page design’, ‘updating of web pages’, ‘updating of computer software’, ‘data management on servers’, ‘rental and maintenance of memory space for websites, for others (hosting)’, ‘rental of storage space on the Internet’, ‘rental of webservers’, ‘providing web space (web-hosting)’ and ‘providing memory space on the Internet’ covered by the mark applied for and the ‘creating and maintaining websites for others’ services covered by the earlier mark are at least highly similar inasmuch as they are closely linked to the creation and the maintenance of web pages.
37 It follows that the Board of Appeal was right to find that the services at issue are in part identical or at least highly similar and in part similar.
