Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2015 —
Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Intercontinental Great Brands (TRIDENT PURE)
(Case T‑491/13)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TRIDENT PURE — Earlier Community, national, international and Benelux figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
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 31, 35, 95, 96)
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 — Word mark TRIDENT PURE — Figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 50, 102, 107-109, 120, 121, 125, 130, 133)
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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Determination of dominant component(s) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 53, 64)
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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 43, 90)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 59)
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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Trade mark constituted by the juxtaposition of an element and another mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 76-79)
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 — Likelihood of association — Earlier marks having characteristics allowing them to be regarded as forming part of the same ‘series’ or ‘family’ — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 100)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs — 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. 103)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 706/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV and Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs. |