Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2014 —
Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)

(Case T‑281/13)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX — Earlier national word mark metabiarex — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1.                     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, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 18, 19)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 56, 57)

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 — Word marks METABIOMAX and metabiarex (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-32, 52-54, 58-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2013 (Case R 2022/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH and Ms Sofia Golam.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.