Language of document : ECLI:EU:T:2015:114





Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 —
9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)

(Case T‑713/13)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark 9flats.com — Earlier national figurative mark 50flats — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) 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), and (2)(a)(ii); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 48, 65)

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 — Word mark 9flats.com and figurative mark 50flats (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 67)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 56-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2013 (Case R 1671/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Tibesoca, SL and 9Flats GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders 9Flats GmbH to pay the costs.