“TC CARL” vs. “carl touch (stylized)” 유사여부

Word element ‘Carl’ vs. word/figurative mark ‘carl touch’

(서구 사회에서) ‘Carl’은 사람의 이름으로서 또는 “Carl Benz”, “Carl Zeiss” 등과 같은 저명한 브랜드의 일부로서 식별력이 거의 없는 것일까? 일반적으로, 문자상표가 문자/도형상표(결합상표)보다 더 강력하게 보호되는 상표법의 법리와 관련하여, 흥미로운 유럽 제1심 법원(CFI)의 판결을 소개한다. 선등록된 문자/도형상표는 아래와 같다(이하, ‘선등록상표’ 또는 ‘‘carl touch’ 상표’): 일반적으로, 문자와 도형(전형적인 것으로 회사 로고)로 이루어진 결합상표는 문자만으로 이루어진 상표에 비해 더 넓게 보호되지 않는다. 그 이유는 도형상표는 출원된 도형에 대해서만 보호되기 때문이다. 또한 문자와 도형이 결합한 결합상표도 그 결합된 상태로만 보호되기 때문이다. 그러나 문자상표는 그 디자인(서체)에 관계없이, 심지어는 대문자나 소문자로 표기된다 하더라도 폭넓게 보호된다. 따라서 회사 로고와 같은 도형이 보호되어야 하는 경우라 할지라도, 문자/도형상표와 별개로 문자상표를 출원하여 보호받는 것이 바람직하다. 이와 관련하여, 유럽 제1심 법원(CFI)은 문자상표 ‘Carl’과 이 단어를 포함하는 문자/도형상표와의 오인·혼동의 가능성을 다룬 사건에서 유사여부를 명확히 판단하였고, 흔히 있는 사람의 이름인 ‘Carl’에 대한 식별력을 논의 하였다.

The applicant, Topcart GmbH (Germany), applied for registration of the term ‘TC CARL’ as a word mark in 2016. The goods and services for which registration was sought were mainly in the field of software and printers. The intervener, Carl International (France), filed a notice of opposition and relied on its earlier figurative mark ‘Carl Touch’. According to the applicant, there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks, particularly since both marks were registered for similar and even identical goods and services. The opposition was upheld by both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. Topcart, the applicant for the trade mark, refused to accept this decision and brought its objections before the European Court of First Instance. The applicant claimed that there were differences between the marks and challenged the decision on the likelihood of confusion, in particular because the first name ‘Carl’ was not very distinctive and because the word element ‘touch’ and, in particular, its graphic presentation was clearly visible in the earlier word and figurative mark. While it is true that the case-law states that first names are less distinctive than surnames, the CFI made it clear that this only applies to word signs composed of a person’s first name and surname. However, since in the present case only a first name is part of the trade marks, this case-law is not relevant here. The Court therefore held that the word element ‘Carl’ had normal intrinsic distinctive character. The similarity between the two marks as regards the word element ‘Carl’ is not offset either by the ‘tc’ of the word mark or by the ‘touch’ element of the word/figurative mark, the Court added. Although the ‘touch’ element of the word/figurative mark is even graphically striking because of the raised hand at the end of the word, that element has only a very weak distinctive character, since the graphics are associated with touch screen technology. Furthermore, the stylisation of the word element ‘carl’ and its frame is perceived merely as decoration, the Court held. In this context, the CFI referred to the settled case-law on a trade mark composed of word and figurative elements, according to which the word element is in principle more distinctive than the figurative element. As regards the word mark, the CFI found that the two elements ‘tc’ and ‘carl’ each have an independent distinctive role in that mark, neither of them being more dominant than the other. Despite its relatively weak distinctive character, the element ‘touch’ is not negligible in the overall impression created by the earlier mark, but this doesn’t change the fact of likelihood of confusion.