Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2014

1. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markCriteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 20, 98, 102)

2. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markFigurative mark nunaWord marks NANA and NANU-NANA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 103-108)

3. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity between the goods or services in questionCriteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 30-32, 38)

4. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity between the goods or services in questionComplementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 59)

5. Community trade markAppeals procedureAction before the EU judicatureJurisdiction of the General CourtReview of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of AppealRe-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodiesNot included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 66)

6. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity of the marks concernedCriteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 73, 74)

7. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity of the marks concernedPossibility of a visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 75)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV, as regards the ’strollers; buggies; safety car seats for children’ in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘baby walkers’ and ’sleeping bags for baby and children’ in Class 20;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.