Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2013 —
Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (360º SONIC ENERGY)
(Case T‑467/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark 360° SONIC ENERGY — Earlier international word mark SONIC POWER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 16-18)
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 31, 32, 68)
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 360º SONIC ENERGY and SONIC POWER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 67, 69, 70)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Similarity of the marks concerned — Analysis in relation to the perception of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-38, 59)
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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 75)
6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 76)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2011 (Case R 1094/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Colgate-Palmolive Company. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Colgate-Palmolive Company to pay the costs. |