Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — riha v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL&FIT)

(Case T-552/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VITAL&FIT — Earlier national word mark VITAFIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

1.                     Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Aim (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 18, 19)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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 — Figurative mark VITAL&FIT and word mark VITAFIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-41, 62, 65)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 43)

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 — Low distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 64)

Re:

Operative part

The Court: