Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015

Data

Court: General Court

Case date: 26 maart 2015

Verdict

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 —

Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

(Case T‑581/13)

"Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB - Earlier Community figurative trade marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009"

1. Community trade markProcedural provisionsStatement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 19, 20, 23)

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 markCriteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 74)

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, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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 concernedCriteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-41)

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 servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markFigurative marks Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB and BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 72, 73, 78, 79, 82-85)

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 servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markWeighting of the similarities and differences of the marks concernedTaking 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. 80)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities CV and Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012‑2) to the extent that it refused Community trade mark application No 9642621 in respect of ‘whips, harnesses, and saddlery’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.