Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —
Evyap v OHIM — Megusta Trading (nuru)
(Case T‑56/14)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wiggly line — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DURU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal — New full examination of the merits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21)
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 para. 28)
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 mark representing a wiggly line — Word and figurative marks DURU (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 33, 34, 47)
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 — 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 paras 30, 32)
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 — Weighting of the elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the marketing conditions of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44-46)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2013 (Case R 1861/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Megusta Trading GmbH. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. to pay the costs. |