Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2013 —
Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP)
(Case T‑338/09)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MBP — Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30, 80, 81)
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. 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 — Word mark MBP and ip_law@mbp. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 61, 77, 82-84)
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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44-48)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1176/2007‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger, Volkmar Kruspig and Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte to pay the costs. |