This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TJ0720
Gat Microencapsulation v OHMI - BASF (KARIS)
Gat Microencapsulation v OHMI - BASF (KARIS)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2015 —
Gat Microencapsulation v OHIM — BASF (KARIS)
(Case T‑720/13)
‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark KARIS — Earlier Community marks and earlier international word mark CARYX — Earlier national marks and earlier Benelux word mark AKRIS — 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 24, 110) |
|
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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25) |
|
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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 47) |
|
4. |
Community trade mark — Lodging the application for a Community trade mark — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark — Use of the general indications in the headings of the classes of the Nice classification — Scope (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(4)) (see para. 44) |
|
5. |
Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 89, 109) |
|
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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 105) |
|
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 — Word mark KARIS and word marks CARYX and AKRIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 115, 116) |
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 1862/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between BASF SE and GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG).
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Gat Microencapsulation GmbH to pay the costs. |
Keywords
Subject of the case
Operative part
Keywords
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 24, 110)
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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)
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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 47)
4. Community trade mark — Lodging the application for a Community trade mark — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark — Use of the general indications in the headings of the classes of the Nice classification — Scope (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(4)) (see para. 44)
5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 89, 109)
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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 105)
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 — Word mark KARIS and word marks CARYX and AKRIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 115, 116)
Subject of the case
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 1862/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between BASF SE and GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG).
Operative part
Operative part
The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Gat Microencapsulation GmbH to pay the costs.