Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Ménard (natura)
(Case T-461/11)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark natura — Prior Community word mark NATURA— Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion —Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Excluded (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6) (see para. 14)
2. 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 — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Excluded (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 16)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 25, 56)
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 — Figurative mark natura and word mark NATURA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 60, 61)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 31, 33)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 44, 45, 47, 48)
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 — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2011 (Case R 2454/2010‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Ernest Ménard SA and Natura Selection, SL. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Natura Selection, SL to pay the costs. |