Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 February 2016 —
Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)

(Case T‑683/13)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROMARKER — Earlier Community word mark EURIMARK — 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 21, 22, 50, 51)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

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 — Word marks EUROMARKER and EURIMARK (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 62, 63)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 58)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 1653/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA and Brammer GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (Case R 1653/2012-1) in so far as it was found in that decision that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards the services ‘providing access to database services for searching for the availability and specifications of community trademarks and designs’ in Class 38 covered by the mark applied for;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Brammer GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs.