Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 May 2013 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of two crossing sickles)

(Case T‑502/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two crossing sickles — Earlier national and international figurative marks representing two interlaced ribbons — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38, 53)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 42)

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 — Figurative mark representing two crossing sickles and figurative marks representing two interlaced ribbons (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 44, 47-51, 62)

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2011 (Case R 1904/2010‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC and Mundipharma AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC to pay the costs.