向欧盟法官学习商标比对方法
在对两个商标予以相同或者近似比对之时，自己比较肯定的判断往往与别人的判断迥异。这不，学习欧洲法院一个新判决时，此情形出现。仔细阅读判决书后，欧盟法官让我学到了十分重要的商标比对方法。
Codorniu Napa. Inc v. OHIM
(Case T‑35/08)
俺的直观印象是：不相似！因为两者的图形部分完全不同，仅文字部分“Artesa”和“Arteso”相似。而且，申请商标还有“NAPA
VALLEY”的文字。OHIM的意见：两者的要部为文字“Artesa”和“Arteso”，因此，两者相似，裁定异议成立。
但是，欧洲法院的结论虽然相同，理由却与OHIM不同。
首先，“Artesa”和“Arteso”是否构成两者的要部？不是！因为，两者的图形部分，特别是其形状、尺寸和颜色（shape,size
and
colour）肯定会对消费者的观察印象产生影响。因此，在分析两者是否相似时，必须在文字与图形所给以消费者的整体印象基础上进行判断。
其次，两者视觉上的相似性（visual
similarity。注意，中国法律无此概念，类似概念应该是“各要素组合后的整体结构相似”）。回答是：低度相似（slight
similar）。判决书这一部分是最难让俺心服口服的。一方面，判决承认图形部分实质不同，但在首肯“Artesa”和“Arteso”相似前提下，笔墨却大量花在论证“NAPA
VALLEY”文字的非主要性作用上面，从而得出结论。俺以为，法官是在写判决书时心有图形，但笔无图形。
第三，关于读音的相似性（phonetic
similarity）。高度相似！理由是“纳帕溪谷”不是重要的，消费者一般不读为“Artesa NAPA VALLEY”。
第四，关于含义的相似性（conceptual
similarity）。是！判决分析了申请商标图形的含义、文字的含义（包括“纳帕溪谷”的地理标志含义），得出，申请商标并无清楚且特别的与引证商标不同的含义）。
在此，欧盟法官教给我们的方法是：商标含义的不同可以抵消视觉或者发音上的相似性。其中，导致含义不同的判断标准是：消费者可以立即明白的“清楚且特别的”含义。
第五，关于混淆可能性的整体评价。答案肯定。因为，酒类的消费与非酒类的销售情形不同，在酒馆或餐馆里，消费者通常不是在超市里自主选择，而是根据酒水单上的名称向侍者口头订购。所以，消费者喊的是“Artesa”。在发音高度相似和视觉轻度相似情况下，自然整体相似。
教给我们的重要方法：在进行混淆可能性全球评价时，两个商标视觉、发音和含义方面并不具有同样的重要性，因此，必须考虑两者在市场上出现的客观情况。相似或不同的程度特别取决于商标固有的品质或者固有的商品或服务市场销售情况。换言之，商品由消费者自主选择时，商标本身的相似可以是决定相似或者不同的主要判断依据，但如果消费者不是自主选择时，则判断依据是商品的发音。这种微观判断方法也许是本案判决教会我们的一种最具适用价值的商标比对方法了。
判决书部分原文摘录：
27 For
the purposes of applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, a
likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the two marks are
identical or similar and that the goods or services which they
cover are identical or similar. Those conditions are
cumulative
28 Furthermore,
in accordance with case-law, in the global assessment of the
likelihood of confusion, account should be taken of the average
consumer of the category of goods concerned, who is reasonably well
informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also
be borne in mind that the average consumer’s level of attention is
likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in
question
31 The
global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in relation to
the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the signs at
issue, must be based on the overall impression given by them,
bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant
components. The perception of the marks by the average consumer of
the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the
global assessment of that likelihood of confusion. In this regard,
the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does
not proceed to analyse its various details
32 Assessment
of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one
component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another
mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining
each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that
the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a
composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be
dominated by one or more of its components. It is only if all the
other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of
the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the
dominant element . That could be the case in particular where that
component is likely alone to dominate the image of that mark which
the relevant public remembers, such that all the other components
of the mark are negligible in the overall impression given by
it.
35 In accordance
with the case-law, when assessing the dominant character of one or
more given components of a composite trade mark, account must be
taken, in particular, of the intrinsic qualities of each of those
components by comparing them with those of other components. In
addition and accessorily, account may be taken of the relative
position of the various components within the arrangement of the
mark。
36 It
is therefore appropriate to consider whether the word element
stands out as the dominant element in the overall impression given
by each of the marks at issue.
37 Firstly, it must
be stated that, where a sign consists of both figurative and word
elements, it does not automatically follow that it is the word
element which must always be considered to be dominant. In the case
of a composite mark, the figurative element may rank equally with
the word element
38 Secondly, as
recalled in paragraph 32 above, it is only if all the other
components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the
similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant
element.
51 In
accordance with case-law, the conceptual differences can be such as
to counteract the visual and phonetic similarities if at least one
of the marks at issue has, from the point of view of the relevant
public, a clear and specific meaning so that the public is capable
of grasping it immediately
57 A
global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some
interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular the
similarity between the trade marks and that between the goods or
services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between
these goods or services may be offset by a high degree of
similarity between the marks, and vice versa
60 In that regard,
it must be stated that, in the global assessment of the likelihood
of confusion, the visual, phonetic or conceptual aspects of the
opposing signs do not always have the same weight and it is then
appropriate to examine the objective conditions under which the
marks may be present on the market
61 The
significance of the similarities or differences between the signs
may depend, in particular, on the inherent qualities of the signs
or the conditions under which the goods or services covered by the
signs are marketed. If the goods covered by the marks in question
are usually sold in self-service stores where consumers choose the
product themselves and must therefore rely primarily on the image
of the trade mark applied to the product, a visual similarity
between the signs will as a general rule be more important. If,
however, the product is primarily sold orally, greater weight will
usually be attributed to any phonetic similarity between the
signs
