Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016

Data

Court: Court of Justice

Case date: 7 april 2016

Verdict

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 —

Harper Hygienics v EUIPO

(Case C‑475/15 P)

"Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Figurative mark containing the word elements CLEANIC Kindii - Application for registration - Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion"

1. AppealsGroundsGrounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfoundedDismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 23, 24)

2. AppealsGroundsInadequate statement of reasonsScope of the obligation to state reasons (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.,) (see paras 28, 33)

3. AppealsGroundsIncorrect assessment of the facts and evidenceInadmissibilityReview by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidencePossible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 34, 48, 58)

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 44, 53, 54)

5. AppealsGroundsPlea directed against a superfluous groundInvalid plea in lawRejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 60)

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 markAssessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 72)

7. AppealGroundsError of law relied on not identified (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 81)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Harper Hygienics SA is ordered to pay the costs.