Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2015

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 31, 35, 95, 96)

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 markWord mark TRIDENT PUREFigurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 50, 102, 107-109, 120, 121, 125, 130, 133)

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 of the marks concernedCriteria for assessmentComposite markDetermination of dominant component(s) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 53, 64)

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 of the marks concernedElements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 43, 90)

5. 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 concernedVisual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 59)

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 assessmentTrade mark constituted by the juxtaposition of an element and another mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 76-79)

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 servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markLikelihood of associationEarlier marks having characteristics allowing them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 100)

8. 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 markWeighing elements of similarity or difference between the signsTaking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 103)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 706/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV and Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs.