Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 —
Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

(Case T‑581/13)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB — Earlier Community figurative trade marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

1.                     Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 19, 20, 23)

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, 74)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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)) (see paras 39-41)

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 — Figurative marks Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB and BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 72, 73, 78, 79, 82-85)

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 — Weighting of the similarities and differences of the marks concerned — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 80)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities CV and Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012‑2) to the extent that it refused Community trade mark application No 9642621 in respect of ‘whips, harnesses, and saddlery’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.