Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM —
Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
(Case T‑62/13)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX — Earlier national word mark BIOMAX — 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 — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1), 130(1), and 132(1)) (see paras 16, 17)
2. 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 — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 23, 24)
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)) (see paras 33, 47, 57)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 36)
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 METABIOMAX and BIOMAX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 45, 55, 60)
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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 37)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 58, 59)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 2089/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Ms Sofia Golam. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs. |