Xiaomi Inc. v. Ram Peer

Xiaomi Inc.


The evidence, examined as a whole, is unable to clearly and unequivocally establish that the earlier trade mark is known by a significant portion of the relevant public in relation to the relevant goods and services.Therefore, one of the prerequisites of Article 8(5) EUTMR is not fulfilled and opposition cannot be upheld based on this opposition ground. As regards Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the relevant public consists of the public at large with a high degree of attention. The relevant goods are identical. The marks are visually at most similar to a low degree. The marks are aurally similar to at most a below average degree. The conceptual comparison is either not possible or the signs are conceptually not similar. The distinctiveness of the earlier marks is normal. The conflicting marks are highly stylised, in case of the contested sign to an extent which will lead thee the relevant public to view the sign (or at the very least, its first three characters) as fully abstract elements and not as letters. It follows that no meaningful visual, phonetic or conceptual similarities between the signs are likely to be established. There is no likelihood of confusion.

Comparison of Trademarks