Orange Brand Services Limited v. OrangeWays Invest Holding Tanácsadó Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság

Orange Brand Services Limited


The marks at issue are visually and aurally similar, due to the fact that the earlier mark, i.e. the word ‘orange, is the first and longest element of the mark applied for, which is the mostly likely to primarily catch the consumers attention and thus by which consumers will remember the mark applied for. The fact that the word ‘Ways could be perceived as evocative of a characteristic of the applicants services, which are related to transport, for example travelling by way of bus, car or other passenger transport, confirms that it is actually of lesser significance in the mark applied for, rather than it being of higher significance, contrary to what is suggested by the applicant. The marks are conceptually similar, since the word ‘Ways is, if not descriptive, at least evocative in relation to the services at issue while the common word ‘Orange is endowed with normal distinctiveness and constitutes a common point of conceptual emphasis for the public in both marks. Considering that the services at issue are identical or similar, the public could be inclined to believe that these are provided by the same or by economically-linked undertakings. The appeal is dismissed.

Comparison of Trademarks