Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 —
Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)

(Case T‑591/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUPER GLUE — Earlier Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1.                     Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

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 25-27)

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 Community trade mark SUPER GLUE and Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 33, 48, 53, 57, 60-62)

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 — 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, Arts 7(1)(b), and 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 36-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2011 (Case R 1147/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel Corp. and Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. to pay the costs.