SWATCH AG v. Shenzhen Inin Watch Co., Ltd



The signs are dissimilar, and that therefore consumers would not make a connection between them either with respect to the similar or the dissimilar services. This is because the verbal element of the earlier marks ‘SWATCH’, perceived as a whole, is conceptually, visually and phonetically removed from ‘INTIMES WATCH’ as outlined above. Consequently, as the contested decision found, Article 8(5) CTMR does not apply and there is no need to evaluate whether the other conditions in Article 8(5) CTMR have been satisfied. Therefore, the opponent’s appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

Comparison of Trademarks