However, the BoA had erred in finding a conceptual comparison was not possible.

They were visually similar to a low degree, and aurally similar to an average degree, particularly because the marks contained the distinctive word 'FLAMING' as the first of two words. The marks had to be considered as a whole, since none of the elements was dominant. The BoA had also been correct to find that the goods and services in question were either identical, or similar to a low degree.

Some of the goods were aimed at both the general public and gambling industry specialists, and the BoA was entitled to find that the degree of attention could have varied from normal to high, depending on the goods. The GC upheld that BoA's assessment relating to the definition of the relevant public and its degree of attention. The GC upheld the BoA's decisions that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks under article 8(1)(b). gambling casino, gaming and gambling services (41) gaming machines for gambling chips for gambling gambling machines operating with coins, notes and cards slot machines (28) computer gaming software electronic components for gambling machines hardware and software for gambling (9) Reproduction of sound or images hardware and software, in particular for slot machines or gambling via the internet or via telecommunications networks (9) - automatic slot machines, automatic gambling machines, automatic entertainment gaming machines (28) - entertainment supplied via the internet services for internet games (41) Impera GmbH v EUIPO Euro Games Technology LtdĪpplication (and where applicable, earlier mark)įLAMING FORTIES - apparatus for recording, transmission or Reports of Trade Mark Cases for CIPA Journalĭecisions of the General Court (GC) and Court of Justice (CJ)

Sims 4 solid eyes