Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)

(Case T‑536/12)

Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark aroa — Earlier national figurative mark Aro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal to register

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 18-19, 50)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)

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 marks aroa and Aro (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 56-58)

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 on the market — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2012 (Case R 1845/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Muga, SL and Aroa Bodegas, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aroa Bodegas, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Bodegas Muga, SL to bear its own costs.