Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015TJ0128

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015.
Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD — Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-128/15.

Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 —

Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)

(Case T‑128/15)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD — Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — 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 18-20, 23)

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 — Word marks RED RIDING HOOD and ROTKÄPPCHEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 41, 42)

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 of the marks concerned — Conceptual similarity between the marks composed of verbal elements in different languages — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 (Case R 1012/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH and Alberto Ruiz Moncayo.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH to pay the costs.

Top