CANDY PARADISE sweet application meets bitter end
The Estonian Board of Appeal has upheld an opposition against the registration of the mark NO SWEET TOOTH CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT THE CANDY PARADISE (the CANDY PARADISE mark) on the basis that it is confusingly similar to the earlier trademark SWEET TOOTH (Case 680, August 28 2006).
AS Kommiparadiis (Candy Paradise) filed an application to register the CANDY PARADISE mark in Class 35 of the Nice Classification. OÜ Kommivabrik (Candy Factory), the owner of the mark SWEET TOOTH registered in Class 30, filed an opposition arguing that Candy Paradise's mark would take unfair advantage of and be detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of its SWEET TOOTH mark.
Among other things, the Board of Appeal held that upon seeing the words 'sweet tooth' in the CANDY PARADISE mark, consumers would likely associate the mark with the earlier SWEET TOOTH mark and thus may conclude that both trademarks and, consequently, the goods and services to which they apply, originate from the same undertaking.
Further, the board reasoned that allowing the CANDY PARADISE mark to be registered in Class 35 would enable Candy Paradise to organize advertising campaigns; display the goods for sale and organize sales campaigns for the goods in Class 30. This, the board found, would enable Candy Paradise to take unfair advantage of the SWEET TOOTH mark and be detrimental to its distinctive character.
Accordingly, the board allowed the opposition.
Mikas Miniotas, AAA Legal Services, Tallinn
Copyright © Law Business ResearchCompany Number: 03281866 VAT: GB 160 7529 10