Judgment of the General Court Second Chamber) of 3 June 2015 —
Lithomex v OHIM — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)
(Case T‑273/14)
Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark LITHOFIX — Earlier national and international word marks LITHOFIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Similarity of goods — No obligation for an examination to be carried out in relation to all the goods covered by the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) 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 14, 15, 46)
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 — Word marks LITHOFIX and LITHOFIN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 33, 44, 45, 51)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 30)
4. Community trade mark — Lodging the application for a Community trade mark — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark — Requirements of clarity and precision — Determination, by the competent authorities and economic operators, of the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 26(1)(c); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(2)) (see para. 27)
5. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Opposition proceedings — Facts and evidence not submitted in time — Account taken — Power of assessment of the Office (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76) (see paras 37, 38)
6. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Examination of a legal question of the Office’s own motion — Condition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 39)
7. 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 50)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 2280/2012‑5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG and Lithomex ApS. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Lithomex ApS to pay the costs. |