Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 —
Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)

(Case T‑599/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL — Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing

1.                     Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Amendment of a decision by the Office — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 64(1), and 65(3)) (see paras 25, 143)

2.                     Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 31)

3.                     Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Condition of admissibility — Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(1)) (see para. 38)

4.                     Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 50, 51)

5.                     Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office ruling at first instance and referred to the Board of Appeal — Functional continuity between those two bodies — Duties of the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see paras 52-56)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 66, 128, 129)

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 — Word mark EUROCOOL and figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 68, 96, 117, 120, 126, 141)

8.                     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. 69)

9.                     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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 94, 95)

10.                     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 97-99)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurocool Logistik GmbH and Mr Peter Lenger.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010‑1) in so far as it concerns the services, referred to in the trade mark application, of ‘development of software for the storage, commissioning and transport of chilled and frozen goods’ in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘services of a freight forwarding company’, in Class 39 of that agreement, covered by the earlier mark;

2. Rejects the opposition in so far as it concerns the services referred to in point 1;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Eurocool Logistik GmbH, OHIM and Mr Peter Lenger each to bear their own respective costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court;

5. Orders OHIM to pay half of the costs incurred by Eurocool Logistik in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.