Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2015 —
Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)

(Case T-611/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa — Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1.                     Procedure — Time-limits — Period allowed for distance — Application to the introduction of an action against an OHIM decision (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(5); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see para. 23)

2.                     Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal — Not permissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4)) (see para. 32)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-42, 67, 68)

4.                     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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45-47)

5.                     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 mark Manea Spa — Word and figurative marks SPA and word mark LES THERMES DE SPA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 54, 64-66, 86-90)

6.                     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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Joined Cases R 1176/2010‑1 and R 1886/2010‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and South Pacific Management.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 September 2011 (Joined Cases R 1176/2010‑1 and R 1886/2010‑1);

2. Orders OHIM and South Pacific Management each to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.