Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2014 —
Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera)
(Case T‑173/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Carrera — Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings
1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(d)) (see para. 26)
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33)
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 — Word mark Carrera and word marks CARRERA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) (see paras 37-48)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 51-53, 62)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Proof to be adduced by proprietor — Genuine future risk of undue profit or damage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 67)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 306/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG and Mr Kurt Hesse. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. |