Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —
adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T‑145/14)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) 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 17-20, 46, 48)

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 — Perception by the public of a sign as constituting an ornament — Irrelevant — 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 — Positional mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Figurative marks representing three parallel bands attached to shoes (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 43, 49, 50)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5)) (see para. 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012‑2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG;

3. Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to bear its own costs.