Gerecht EU week 14
Gemeenschapsmerk. We beperken ons tot een wekelijks overzicht van de (voortgezette oppositie)beslissingen van het Gerecht EU. Ditmaal over:
A) Beroep SO gedeeltelijk toegewezen [tegen SÔ:UNIC]
B) Beroep FOCUS extreme afgewezen [tegen FOCUS]
Gerecht EU 3 april 2014, T-356/12 (SÔ:UNIC) - dossier
Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de houder van de internationale, communautaire en nationale woord- en beeldmerken met het woordelement SO voor waren van klasse 3 en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing houdende verwerping van het beroep tegen de afwijzing door de oppositieafdeling van de oppositie ingesteld door verzoekster tegen de aanvraag tot inschrijving van het woordmerk SÔ:UNIC voor waren van klasse 3. Beroep gedeeltelijk toegewezen.
55 First, having regard to the considerations set out in paragraphs 16 to 33 above, from which it follows that the first plea is unfounded, the applicant’s application for annulment must be dismissed in so far as concerns the part of the contested decision which rejected the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. As a result of that dismissal, it is not necessary to establish whether, by the assertions set out in the text of the application, which are not reflected in the form of order sought therein, the applicant is requesting the Court to exercise the power to alter decisions in order to uphold the opposition based on that provision, at least in respect of certain goods.
56 Secondly, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 34 to 54 above, the contested decision must be annulled in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected as inadmissible the opposition based on Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, as regards the signs relied on by the applicant so far as the United Kingdom and Ireland are concerned, and the action dismissed as to the remainder. Since, in those circumstances, the Board of Appeal will have to examine the merits of the opposition in so far as it concerned those signs, it is not necessary to rule on the applicant’s request, made only in the text of the reply, that the Court alter the contested decision in order to give the applicant the opportunity to resubmit a notice of opposition based on that provision.
Gerecht EU 4 april 2014, T-568/12 (FOCUS extreme) - dossier
Gemeenschapsmerk – Beroep ingesteld door de aanvrager van het beeldmerk met de woordelementen FOCUS extreme voor waren van de klassen 5, 16 en 25, en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing houdende verwerping van verzoeksters beroep tegen de beslissing van de oppositieafdeling tot gedeeltelijke weigering van de inschrijving van dit merk in het kader van de oppositie ingesteld door de houder van het nationale woordmerk "FOCUS" voor waren van klasse 25. Het beroep is afgewezen.
47 The Board of Appeal held, in essence, that, since the earlier mark had an average distinctive character, the goods were identical and the marks at issue were similar, the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers could not be safely excluded.
48 The applicant claims that, since the marks at issue differ from one another and the goods which they cover are unrelated to each other, there is no likelihood of confusion.
49 As is apparent from paragraphs 26 to 30 above, the mark applied for and the earlier mark cover goods in Class 25 in an identical manner.
50 Furthermore, as has been observed in paragraphs 35 to 45 above, the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to take the view that the signs at issue were similar overall.
51 It must therefore be held that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue in so far as they cover goods in Class 25. The identity of those goods covered by the two marks at issue and the degree of similarity between those marks, considered cumulatively, prove sufficient to make it possible to draw the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion, regardless of the degree of distinctive character of the earlier mark. It should, moreover, be noted, in this regard, that the Board of Appeal found that the earlier mark had a normal distinctive character, a finding which the applicant does not challenge.
52 The applicant’s argument that she was entitled to a ‘temporal priority’, on the ground that, unlike the intervener, she had lodged an application for registration of a Community trade mark, must likewise be rejected. As OHIM states, it follows from Article 8(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 that the mark applied for may be refused registration, including upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark registered in a Member State, which is the case here.
53 In those circumstances, the first plea, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, must be rejected.
