Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
(Case T‑258/08)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
1. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘parts of the products or services’ covered by the registration
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(2) and (3))
(see paras 34, 35)
2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 49)
3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 51)
4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Composite mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 53, 55-57, 66)
5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Diacor and figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 69-74)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs. |