“Omega”

1. Both Art. 9(2)(b) and Art. 9(2)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009 require the identicality or similarity of signs. The cases mentioned in these two provisions concern a different degree of similarity. The degree of similarity may be lower in relation to trade marks with a reputation. a. Applicable to all trade marks, Art. 9(2)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009, as a condition of a violation, requires the likelihood that the public will be confused, which also includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark. b. However, this condition does not occur in Art. 9(2)(c) of the Regulation, which refers to trade marks with a reputation. Instead, it is necessary that the use of a sign similar to a trade mark can be of undue advantage to the violator or be detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the Community trade mark, which can also occur with a lower degree of similarity between signs. c. However, this differentiation does not change the fact that in both cases a certain degree of similarity must occur. 2. If the assessment shows that there is no similarity between a trade mark and a sign, that assessment cannot be altered by the fact that the sign initially used could be considered to be similar to the trade mark. The fact that the sign currently in use is similar to the one used previously, and the latter is similar to the trade mark, may have some significance in assessing the similarity between the current sign in use and said trade mark; however, the decisive role should be given to a direct comparison of the two signs.

[1]  Thomas A. Halgren,et al.  Merck molecular force field. V. Extension of MMFF94 using experimental data, additional computational data, and empirical rules , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[2]  Thomas A. Halgren,et al.  Merck molecular force field. II. MMFF94 van der Waals and electrostatic parameters for intermolecular. interactions , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[3]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[4]  Thomas A. Halgren,et al.  Merck molecular force field. IV. conformational energies and geometries for MMFF94 , 1996 .

[5]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules , 1990 .

[6]  M. F.,et al.  Bibliography , 1985, Experimental Gerontology.

[7]  Thomas A. Halgren.  MMFF VI. MMFF94s option for energy minimization studies , 1999, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  T. Halgren.  MMFF VII. Characterization of MMFF94, MMFF94s, and other widely available force fields for conformational energies and for intermolecular‐interaction energies and geometries , 1999, Journal of computational chemistry.

[9]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Reproducing the conformations of protein-bound ligands: A critical evaluation of several popular conformational searching tools , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  Thomas A. Halgren.  Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  Thomas A. Halgren,et al.  MMFF VII. Characterization of MMFF94, MMFF94s, and other widely available force fields for conformational energies and for intermolecular‐interaction energies and geometries , 1999, J. Comput. Chem..

[12]  Ralph Waldo Emerson.  Concord , 1925 .

[13]  D C Spellmeyer,et al.  Conformational analysis using distance geometry methods. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[14]  Thomas A. Halgren.  Merck molecular force field. III. Molecular geometries and vibrational frequencies for MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  FROM ATOMS AND BONDS TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL ATOMIC COORDINATES : AUTOMATIC MODEL BUILDERS , 1993 .

[16]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-ray Structures , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  WIZARD , 2020, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applications of Intelligent Systems.