Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 —
TrekStor v OHIM — Scanlab (iDrive)
(Case T‑105/14)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iDrive — Prior German word mark IDRIVE — 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 — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see paras 15-17)
2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant — Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Council Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(1), and Rule 20(2)) (see paras 22-24)
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 30, 83)
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 — Word marks iDrive and IDRIVE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 36, 37, 49, 82, 90, 91)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)
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. 39)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 59, 62)
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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 88, 89)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 2330/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Scanlab AG and TrekStor Ltd. |
Operative part
The Court:
1. | | Dismisses the request to stay the proceedings lodged by TrekStor Ltd; |
3. | | Orders TrekStor Ltd to pay the costs. |