Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)
(Case T‑109/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENDURACE — Earlier Community figurative mark ENDURANCE — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Partial refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 22)
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 27-31)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Assessment criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)
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 — Word mark ENDURACE and figurative mark ENDURANCE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-42, 46, 50-56, 66-82)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57-60)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2010 (Case R 625/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd and Apollo Tyres AG. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Apollo Tyres AG to pay the costs. |