Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2013 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
(Case T‑504/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIGNITUDE — Earlier national and Community word marks Dignity — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 15)
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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 30, 31)
4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute — Included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 28)
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 marks DIGNITUDE and Dignity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 46, 47)
6. 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. 33)
7. 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. 44)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1197/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Protecsom SAS. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs. |