Case T‑684/13

Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BLUECO — Earlier Community word mark BLUECAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for variation made by the intervener — Article 65(4) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 25 September 2015

1.      Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Exclusion

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

2.      Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision — Decision upholding an opposition to registration of a trade mark, based on the existence of the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, without recognising the latter as having enhanced distinctiveness — Application for variation by the proprietor of the earlier mark concerning assessment of the degree of distinctiveness and recognition of that mark — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(4))

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 — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

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 — Word marks BLUECO and BLUECAR

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 22, 23)

2.      The provisions of Article 65(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 provide that an action before the Court against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to be open to any party to proceedings before the Board of Appeal adversely affected by its decision.

Moreover, an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings is an essential prerequisite for any legal proceeding, and must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the time at which the action is brought, failing which it will be inadmissible. This presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it.

A decision of a Board of Appeal must be regarded as having upheld the claims of one of the parties before that Board, when it grants the application of that party on the basis of one of the grounds for refusal of registration or for invalidity of a mark or, more generally, of only part of the arguments put forward by that party, even where it does not examine or where it dismisses the other grounds or arguments raised by that party.

In that regard, where the Board of Appeal considers that there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue and it upholds the opposition, even though it does not recognise that the earlier trade mark had acquired enhanced distinctiveness though its use, any variation of the contested decision solely based on the assessment made by the Board of Appeal concerning the degree of distinctiveness and recognition of the earlier trade mark has no effect on the intervener’s rights stemming from that trade mark, which that decision has in no way affected. Accordingly, in such a situation, the intervener’s claim for variation of the contested decision must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 27, 28, 31, 32)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 36, 37, 39, 59)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 42, 60)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 47-58, 66, 69, 70)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 65)