Case C‑50/15 P

Kurt Hesse

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Word mark Carrera — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation acquired by the earlier mark’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 21 January 2016

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services — Autonomous criterion — Obligation to state reasons

   (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Assessments regarding the similarity of the goods or services — Assessments regarding the reputation of the earlier mark

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

1.  In order to assess the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors which characterise the relationship between them should be taken into account. Those factors include, in particular, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary.

   Although the complementary nature of the goods at issue represents only one factor amongst several others in the light of which the similarity of the goods can be assessed, the fact remains that it is an autonomous criterion capable of being the sole basis for the existence of such a similarity. Furthermore, the General Court cannot — subject to the obligation (i) to observe the general principles and the rules of procedure relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence and (ii) not to distort the clear sense of the evidence — be required to give express reasons for its assessment of the value of each piece of evidence presented to it, in particular where it considers that that evidence is unimportant or irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute. Accordingly, the General Court did not err in law by upholding the assessment of the Board of Appeal according to which the goods at issue were similar because of their complementarity, without carrying out, to that end, an analysis of the origin, the marketing, the distribution channels or the points of sale of those goods.

   (see paras 21, 23-25)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 26, 29, 30)