Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2015
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2015
Data
- Court
- General Court
- Case date
- 13 mei 2015
Verdict
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 —
Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)
(Case T‑363/13)
"Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC intimate - Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009"
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 22, 79)
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 markRefusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 23)
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 markAssessment of the likelihood of confusionDetermination of the relevant publicAttention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)
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 CLEANIC intimate and word mark CLINIQUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 46, 80, 81, 83)
Community trade markAppeals procedureAction before the EU judicatureJurisdiction of the General Court (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 31-34)
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, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 44)
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 assessmentComposite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51)
Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputationProtection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or servicesTaking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier markFigurative mark CLEANIC intimate and word mark CLINIQUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 89, 90, 97)
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 assessmentCoexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 93, 94)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2013 (Case R 606/2012‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Harper Hygienics S.A.
Operative part
The Court:
Dismisses the action;
Orders Harper Hygienics S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Clinique Laboratories, LLC.