Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 —
Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED)
(Case T‑551/13)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED — Earlier national figurative mark VAMED — Relative ground 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 20-22, 24, 63)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 31)
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 paras 38-40)
5. 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 mark AKTIVAMED and figurative mark VAMED (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64-67)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2013 (Case R 365/2012‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vamed AG and Michael Radecki. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Mr Michael Radecki to pay the costs. |