Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Pyrox v OHIM — Köb Holzheizsysteme (PYROX)
(Case T‑575/12)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark PYROX — Earlier national word marks PYROT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 20, 21)
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 27, 28, 31, 32, 94)
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 — Figurative marks PYROX and word marks PYROT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 98-102)
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 para. 51)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 74-76, 82)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2012 (Joined Cases R 2187/2011‑1 and R 2507/2011‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Köb Holzheizsysteme GmbH and Pyrox GmbH. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Pyrox GmbH to pay the costs. |