Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)
(Case T‑569/10)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility
1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks BIMBO DOUGHNUTS and DOGHNUTS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 97-100)
2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52, 55, 69, 90, 96)
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 77, 78)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM; |
3. | | Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs. |