Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 May 2014 —
Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
(Case T‑160/12)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MARINE BLEU — Earlier Community word mark BLUMARINE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
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 31, 32, 60, 67)
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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)
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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 39)
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 marks MARINE BLEU and BLUMARINE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 61, 63, 65-67)
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. 65)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2012 (Case R 1955/2010‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Blufin SpA and Adler Modemärkte AG. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Adler Modemärkte AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); |
3. | | Orders Blufin SpA to bear its own costs. |