Trademark law: Likelihood of confusion with figurative marks (Federal Administrative Court)

The Federal Administrative Court came to the conclusion that the two marks are confusingly similar for similar goods:  “In the overall impression, the contested mark is more stylized, the graphic language is somewhat different, but the similarity in the form of expression due to the bared teeth predominates. (…) Moreover, both marks are based on a related style of signs (…). [As far as the meaning is concerned, it does not matter whether consumers can make a precise association with a tiger in the contested mark, because in the end, nothing more than the head of a snarling cat of prey will stick in their memory … The contested mark is merely a variation or adaptation of the opposing mark and does not have an independent design.