Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016

Data

Court: General Court

Case date: 28 april 2016

Verdict

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 —

Zehnder Group International v EUIPO — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

(Case T‑267/14)

"EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark comfotherm - Earlier national word mark KOMFOTHERM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Relevant public - Interdependence of factors"

EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityRelative grounds for invalidityExistence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markCriteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 68, 69)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU 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 paras 24, 25, 43, 44)

EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityRelative grounds for invalidityExistence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markWord marks comfotherm and KOMFOTHERM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 26, 39, 45, 52, 66, 71)

EU trade markLodging of the application for the EU trade markIdentification of the goods or services concerned by the trade markRequirements of clarity and precisionDetermination, by the competent authorities and economic operators, of the extent of the protection conferred by the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 26(1)(c); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(2)) (see para. 34)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU 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 50, 55, 63)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU 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 questionOverlap between two categories of goods or services with different purposes (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2014 (Case R 1318/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG and Zehnder Group International AG.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders Zehnder Group International AG to pay the costs.