The European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has partly upheld Apple’s opposition to a trademark application filed by a Chinese company called Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics, citing concerns that its citrus logo could benefit Apple’s reputation in the EU. Here are the details.
Apple wins trademark dispute over citrus logo, with caveat
As spotted by WoozadThe EUIPO rejected Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics’ application to register its citrus logo for keyboards and other IT products, but upheld the company’s application for solar panels.
This case began last July, when Apple opposed Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics’ European trademark application, arguing that the company’s citrus logo was too similar to Apple’s logo.
The logo depicts a round citrus fruit with a leaf pointing to the left, a missing section on its right side, lower segments that resemble keyboard keys, and upper segments reminiscent of sun rays. Apple argued that most of these elements were reminiscent of its own logo, particularly for products related to computers and electronics.
As the EUIPO explains, “the grounds for refusal in Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable where the following conditions are met:”
- The signs must be the same or similar.
- The opponent’s mark must enjoy a reputation. The reputation must also predate the filing of the contested trademark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the products and/or services on which the opposition is based.
- Risk of harm: use of the contested mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark.
The EUIPO adds that these conditions “are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of one of them will result in the rejection of the opposition (…)”.
With this in mind, in its decision, the EUIPO stated:
However, complying with all the conditions mentioned above may not be enough. The opposition may nevertheless fail if the applicant justifies the use of the contested mark.
In the present case, the applicant has not claimed to have a just reason for using the contested mark. Therefore, in the absence of indications to the contrary, it must be assumed that no valid reason exists.
The EUIPO goes on to explain that while Apple “enjoys a high degree of reputation among the relevant public in the European Union” for IT-related products, this was not the case “for all products for which a reputation is claimed.” »:
Therefore, even if the signs are visually similar only to a very small extent, the Opposition Division concludes that, when encountering the contested sign in relation to the above-mentioned goods in Class 9 – which have, or may have, a close link with the goods for which the earlier mark enjoys a high reputation – the consumers concerned are likely to associate it with the earlier mark, i.e.: establish a mental “link” between the signs.
On the other hand, the dispute solar panels for electricity production are devices designed to convert sunlight directly into electrical energy through the photovoltaic effect. (…) The disputed products in question do not target the same relevant consumers, because they meet completely different needs and have different distribution channels. (…) Therefore, and because these contested products and the opponent’s relevant products for which a reputation has been proven belong to distinct industries and commercial sectors which have nothing clearly relevant in common, the Opposition Division considers that it is very unlikely that the relevant public, when encountering the contested sign in relation to such services, would remember the earlier mark, even if it enjoys a high degree of reputation.
As a result, the office granted Apple’s opposition to computer-related products due to the possibility that consumers could mentally link the two signs, but allowed Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics to proceed with trademark registration for the solar panels.
You can read the EUIPO decision below:
To discover on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic, revenue-generating affiliate links. More.