Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 – Saiwa v OHIM
(Case C‑245/06 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Application for a figurative mark including the word element ‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ – Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded
1.Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 33, 48)
2.Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 47)
Re:
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 | Saiwa | v | OHIM | , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the national and international word mark ‘ORO’ and the national word mark ‘ORO SAIWA’ for goods in Class 30, for annulment of Decision R 480/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 July 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition filed against the application to register a figurative mark including the word elements ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and ‘Barilla’ for goods in Class 30 – Similarity of marks – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1). |
Operative part:
1. |
| The appeal is dismissed. |
2. |
| Saiwa SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |