Valentino S.p.A. v. Casa Valentina S.p.A.

Valentino S.p.A.


Both the figurative element and the word element of the two trade marks exhibit degrees of similarity. This similarity is further reflected in the overall appearance of the two signs. There is a certain similarity overall, even though it cannot be considered high. The applicants listing corresponds, for the most part, to that of the opponent in Class 20. The applicant added ‘furniture of metal; camping furniture; spring mattresses; pillows. The ‘furniture of metal; camping furniture are furniture and therefore are included in the opponents ‘furniture entry. The ‘spring mattresses; pillows do not feature, as such, in the opponents listing in Class 20, but should be considered complementary and similar to both the ‘furniture (which includes beds, for which mattresses and pillows are intended) and the ‘bed covers that are included in Class 24. In conclusion, the applicants goods are all identical to those of the opponent, with the exception of the mattresses and pillows, which are similar. By virtue of the principle of interdependence of factors, under which a low degree of similarity between the trade marks is offset by a high degree of similarity between the goods, the conclusion can be reached that, in the case in point, a likelihood of confusion exists. The substantially identical nature of the goods in Class 20 offsets the low level of similarity of the trade marks. The appeal is dismissed.

Comparison of Trademarks