Case T-407/08

MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark ‘Metromeet’ – Earlier national word mark ‘meeting metro’ – 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))

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

There is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark for the relevant public, consisting of German professionals in the metrology field and providers of services thereto, between the figurative sign ‘Metromeet’, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41 of the Nice Agreement, and the word sign ‘meeting metro’, previously registered in Germany for goods and services in the same classes.

The mere inversion of elements of a mark cannot allow the conclusion to be drawn that there is no visual similarity. Likewise, the fact that the syllables are pronounced in an inverted order cannot prevent the signs from being similar overall.

In view of the fact, first, that the goods and services at issue are, in part, identical and, in part, at least similar, and, second, that the signs at issue are visually and aurally similar, albeit only slightly, and conceptually identical, the difference between those signs is insufficient to exclude all likelihood of confusion between the trade marks on the part of the public.

(see paras 29-30, 38, 40, 46)