EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TJ0504
Hartmann v OHMI - Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
Hartmann v OHMI - Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
Keywords
Subject of the case
Operative part
Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 15)
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 paras 21, 22)
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 — 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 paras 23, 30, 31)
4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute — Included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 28)
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 — Word marks DIGNITUDE and Dignity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 46, 47)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1197/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Protecsom SAS.
Operative part
The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2013 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
(Case T-504/11)
‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIGNITUDE — Earlier national and Community word marks Dignity — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’
1. |
Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 15) |
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 paras 21, 22) |
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 — 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 paras 23, 30, 31) |
4. |
Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute — Included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 28) |
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 — Word marks DIGNITUDE and Dignity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 46, 47) |
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33) |
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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44) |
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1197/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Protecsom SAS.
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs. |