Picaro Rolls By Picasso Estate Inwards Race For The European Vehicle Market

The Court of First Instance (CFI) has precisely published its ruling in Case T-185/02, Claude Ruiz-Picasso as well as others v OHIM. The Picassos, ably represented yesteryear leading European merchandise seat lawyer Charles Gielen (NautaDutilh), opposed an application yesteryear DaimlerChrysler AG to register every bit a Community merchandise seat the discussion PICARO for motor vehicles as well as their parts. The opposition, based on the Picassos' registration of the discussion seat PICASSO for diverse vehicles, was dismissed by OHIM's Opposition Division as well as so yesteryear the Board of Appeal, next which the Picasso clan appealed to the CFI. All iii tribunals were united inward their understanding that at that spot was no likelihood of confusion betwixt the words PICASSO (an immensely famous artist) as well as PICARO (an one-time discussion pregnant "rogue"). The CFI affirmed that, any the European Court of Justice mightiness remove maintain said nigh famous marks beingness entitled to greater protection against confusion than less well-known marks, that regulation sure could non apply hither where Picasso's squall was so widely-known that people wouldn't error a discussion such every bit "picaro" amongst it. The CFI said:

"57 The discussion sign PICASSO has a clear as well as specific semantic content for the relevant public. Contrary to the applicants’ submissions, the relevance of the pregnant of the sign for the purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion is non affected inward the acquaint representative yesteryear the fact that that pregnant has no connector amongst the goods concerned. The reputation of the painter Pablo Picasso is such that it is non plausible to consider, inward the absence of specific bear witness to the contrary, that the sign PICASSO every bit a seat for motor vehicles may, inward the perception of the average consumer, override the squall of the painter so that that consumer, confronted amongst the sign PICASSO inward the context of the goods concerned, volition henceforth disregard the pregnant of the sign every bit the squall of the painter as well as perceive it principally every bit a mark, amidst other marks, of motor vehicles."

It added:

"61 Moreover, the applicants are incorrect to rely, inward the acquaint case, on the case-law which states that merchandise marks which remove maintain a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, bask broader protection than marks amongst a less distinctive grapheme (SABEL, cited inward paragraph 35 above, paragraph 24, as well as Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I‑5507, paragraph 18). That the discussion sign PICASSO is good known every bit corresponding to the squall of the famous painter Pablo Picasso is non capable of heightening the likelihood of confusion betwixt the 2 marks for the goods concerned".

thinks this determination is absolutely correct. It is an absurd fiction to advise that well-known marks are to a greater extent than inward demand of protection against likelihood of confusion if the rattling fact of their well-known nature causes them to stand upwards out inward the eyes of the relevant consumer every bit conveying the course of report of powerful message or icon that "Picasso" does. The populace is to a greater extent than probable to confuse MUFFINS amongst MUGGINS for sausage meat than PICASSO amongst PICARO for motor vehicles but because it has heard of neither of them.

Real Picassos here and here; faux Picassos here and here
's favourite Picassos here, here and here; the IPKat's favourite faux Picasso here