Tesco Stores Limited v. Tescoma, S.R.O.

The argument that the signs in question have co-existed in the Czech and Slovak Republic without any evidence of LOC did not show any relevance because even if the opponent have effectively relinquished its right to oppose the registration of the mark TESCOMA in these countries, the Board is reluctant to infer that he has conceded the right in relation to other countries as well. The Statement - furnished by the opponent - that the mark `TESCO` was extremely well-known, is entirely credible without any need for further substantiation. The opponents mark is inherently distinctive (being a made up word) and has a greatly enhanced distinctiveness due to its notoriety. Its scope of protection is therefore more than broad enough to encompass a rival mark which merely has the addition of the letters MA at the end of it. The signs Adidasma for sports equipment, Coca-Colama for soft drinks and Guccima for perfume, could hardly fail to be associated by consumers with Adidas, Coca-cola and Gucci respectively. Given the similarity of goods since the applicant itself places its goods within the area of cutlery by listing on its specification ‘Cutlery, in particular…cleavers and sports knives… and the similarity of the marks, a likelihood of confusion exists. The appeal is therefore dismissed.