Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 February 2016

Data

Court: General Court

Case date: 2 februari 2016

Verdict

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 February 2016 —

Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)

(Case T‑683/13)

"Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark EUROMARKER - Earlier Community word mark EURIMARK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 21, 22, 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 registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markAssessment of the likelihood of confusionDetermination of the relevant public (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 markWord marks EUROMARKER and EURIMARK (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 62, 63)

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 assessmentComplementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 49, 58)

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 markWeak distinctive character of the earlier markEffect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 1653/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA and Brammer GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (Case R 1653/2012-1) in so far as it was found in that decision that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards the services ‘providing access to database services for searching for the availability and specifications of community trademarks and designs’ in Class 38 covered by the mark applied for;

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

Orders Brammer GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs.