Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 October 2013 —
Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (zoo sport)

(Case T‑455/12)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZOO Sport — Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 92)

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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

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 ZOO SPORT and ZOOT SPORT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 91, 98)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1395/2011‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zoo Sport Ltd to pay the costs.