In essence, the Opposition Division found that, as the services covered by the earlier mark and the goods and services covered by the mark applied for were dissimilar, there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, despite the identity of the conflicting signs.
En substance, la division d’opposition a estimé que, les services couverts par la marque ant érieure et les produits et services visés par la marque demand ée étant différents, il n’existait aucun risque de confusion, au sens de l’article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement n° 40/94, malgré l’identit é des signes en conflit.