Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2014 —
Golam v OHIM — Pentafarma (METABOL)

(Case T‑486/12)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABOL — Earlier national word mark METABOL-MG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1.                     Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 18, 19)

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 paras 28, 29, 50)

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 — Word marks METABOL and METABOL-MG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 41, 46-48, 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1901/2011‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA and Ms Sofia Golam.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.