Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 —
Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE)
(Case T‑194/14)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AEROSTONE — Earlier Community word marks STONE and BRIDGESTONE — Earlier non-registered national figurative mark BRIDGESTONE — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction addressed to the Office — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 24)
2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 30, 31)
3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Decision of a unit of the Office forming part of the context of the decision of the Board of Appeal (see para. 42)
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-51, 101)
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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 96)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark AEROSTONE — Word marks STONE and BRIDGESTONE and figurative mark BRIDGESTONE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 55, 65-69, 102)
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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56-58, 62-64, 73, 82)
8. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 106)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 916/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bridgestone Corp. and Bristol Global Co. Ltd. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Bristol Global Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Bridgestone Corp. |