EU trade mark dispute: Acer’s PREDATOR

On 20 November, the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) ruled in case T-1163/23 concerning EU trade mark No. 015171234, PREDATOR, owned by Taiwanese tech company Acer Inc.

 

In 2017, Polish company Domator24 sp.z registered EU word mark No. 016757262, PREDATOR with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), covering goods in Class 20 of the Nice Classification, such as armchairs, office chairs, desk seats and cushions. In 2021, Acer filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark on the basis of its identical earlier EU word mark PREDATOR, which covers goods in Class 9, including computers, IT equipment, laptops, tablets, keyboards, mice, monitors and headsets.

 

In the first instance, the Cancellation Division rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety. However, the Board of Appeal considered that the relevant public was the general public with a medium to high level of attention and that the goods in Classes 9 and 20 while similar to a low degree were complementary due to their common distribution channels and common target consumers, except for cushions, which were considered to be different. As the signs were identical and the earlier mark had a medium degree of distinctiveness, it held that there was a likelihood of confusion for all goods except cushions and consequently declared the mark partially invalid.

 

The Polish company appealed against that decision to the General Court of the European Union, which had to determine whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

 

After analysing the similarity of the "PREDATOR" marks, the Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO, concluding that it had correctly assessed the similarity of the goods and the likelihood of consumer confusion. Although the Polish company argued that the EUIPO had not properly assessed the evidence submitted, the Court pointed out that all relevant factors, including distribution channels and target consumers, had been taken into account. For instance, it was noted that online shops often offer a variety of products from different market segments, which may lead consumers not to associate products from different categories with the same commercial origin. Furthermore, although the products may be complementary, this does not mean that the end users of the products in question are the same. The EUIPO pointed out that the purchase of an armchair or a sofa is generally not accompanied by the purchase of a computer, which reinforces the idea that the relevant public for these products is different. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered Domator24 to pay the costs.