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 19, 20, 85)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Trade mark constituted by the juxtaposition of an element and another mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25‑27, 33, 39, 40, 53, 62, 63)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark holzmichel and figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 86-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 1968/2011‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs.

Top

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 October 2014 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel) (Case T‑263/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark holzmichel — Earlier international figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 — Trade mark constituted by the juxtaposition of an element and another mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25‑27, 33, 39, 40, 53, 62, 63)

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 — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

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 holzmichel and figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 86-93)

Re:

Operative part

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs.

Top

Title and reference

Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part