Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2014 — Comptoir d’Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)
(Case T‑405/13)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for international registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark da rosa — Earlier Community word mark aROSA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 21)
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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)
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 — Possession by the trade mark applicant of a national mark identical to that applied for and prior to the opposing national trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8) (see para. 45)
4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant — Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 42(2) and (3), and 132(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art.1, Rule 22) (see paras 55, 56)
5. 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 (see paras 63, 64)
6. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 65)
7. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — Right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 71)
8. 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 (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 72)
9. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision referring to EU case-law not published in the ECR — No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 75, 76)
10. 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 81, 82, 84, 85, 109, 131)
11. 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 da rosa and word mark aROSA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 90, 91, 108, 134)
12. 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 products concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 94, 95)
13. 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 110, 111, 120)
14. 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 — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 115)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 1195/2012-5), concerning opposition proceedings between A-Rosa Akademie Gmbh and Le Comptoir d’Épicure. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Le Comptoir d’Épicure to pay the costs. |