Trademark Dispute between PUMA and RUMA
FACTS
A conflict involved the Finnish word mark RUMA (“ugly” in Finnish) and the earlier PUMA figurative marks in stylized text. The goods covered by Class 25, clothing, and Class 28; sporting goods were identical. The question arose if the difference in the initial letter of each brand name was enough to distinguish between the two marks.
Judgement by The Finnish Patent and Registration Office and the Market Court-
The Finnish Patent and Registration Office and the Market Court observed that the likelihood of confusion between the two brands was very low. The Market Court held that the public interested in buying the relevant goods paid particular attention to “conceptual differences” while making such purchases.
Supreme Administrative Court’s decision-
However, the case went to the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, and its judgment was contrary to the one observed by The Finnish Patent and Registration Office and the Market Court. The Supreme Administrative Court observed that the marks were quite similar and that the initial letters ‘R’ and ‘P’ could lead to confusion among the buyers. The representative for PUMA argued that their brand name holds a very reputed global trademark. However, it failed to provide any evidence for the claimed reputation in Finland. Although interestingly, the Court still considered them to have a robust and distinctive character and scope of protection.
The Court held that there was no reason to consider that PUMA marks were weak in distinctiveness and scope of protection. It did not describe the goods in Classes 25 or 28 in a way that was detrimental to its distinctive character. Consequently, the PUMA marks were considered a substantial scope of protection, despite the lack of evidence of their claimed reputation in Finland. It further observed that they displayed the goods under consideration (sports apparel and goods) in shopping centres and online shopping platforms. It provides the consumers with the opportunity to compare various brands. Hence, the Court emphasized to figure out if the visual appearance of the signs and design of goods were similar and if an ordinary consumer can distinguish the difference as consumers don’t tend to pay much attention to pronunciation and conceptual meaning of the signs. Eventually, the marks were considered to be ‘confusingly similar’.
Also read: Puma Counterfeit: One cannot copy Puma’s logo anymore; it’s 2021!
Observation-
Even though PUMA and RUMA differ conceptually, greater emphasis was laid on the visual similarity of the marks, design & nature of goods in question, and how the consumers responded to such similarities. Furthermore, the Court did acknowledge that the comparison of goods wasn’t challenging. Still, it did not rule out the possibility of confusion and hence, ordered that the two marks were confusingly similar.
Reference: https://www.kho.fi/fi/index/paatokset/vuosikirjapaatokset/1618212299813.html
Author: Sushmita Gupta, student at NALSAR University of Law
Disclaimer: This brief is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter. It does not contain legal advice. For any specific advice/corrections, write to [email protected]
© ZEST IP
