Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2017 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)
(Case T‑224/16)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark Out Door — Earlier EU word mark OUTDOOR PRO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
1. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Scope — Relative grounds for refusal, excluding absolute grounds raised in observations of third parties
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7, 8, 41 and 42)
(see paras 21, 22)
2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1))
(see para. 23)
3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 31, 32, 48)
4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Out Door and word mark OUTDOOR PRO
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 34, 38, 65)
5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 35)
6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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, 40)
7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Effect
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 55)
8. EU trade mark — Lodging of application for EU trade mark — Right of priority — Trade mark application accompanied by a claim for priority — Examination of the formal and substantive conditions by OHIM
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 29)
(see para. 58)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 2302/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Messe Friedrichshafen. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH to pay the costs. |