Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 —
Mocek and Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)
(Case T‑364/13)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991
1. 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 19, 20, 54, 58)
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 — Figurative mark KAJMAN and figurative mark representing a crocodile (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28, 30, 42, 46, 53, 57, 64)
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. 29)
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 31, 32)
5. Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Concept — Analogous solution for claims raised in support of a plea (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (2015), Art. 84(1)) (see para. 86)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA; |
3. | | Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration; |
4. | | Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration. |