Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10March 2016—
credentis v OHIM— Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)
(Case T‑53/15)
Community trade mark— Opposition proceedings— Application for Community word mark Curodont— Earlier national word mark Eurodont— Relative ground for refusal— Likelihood of confusion— Article8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No207/2009
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 No207/2009, Art.8(1)(b)) (see paras15, 50)
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— Determination of the relevant public— Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.8(1)(b)) (see paras16, 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— Word marks Curodont and Eurodont (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.8(1)(b)) (see paras20, 23, 31, 49, 53)
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— Similarity between the goods or services in question— Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.8(1)(b)) (see para.24)
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— Similarity between the goods or services in question— Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.8(1)(b)) (see para.29)
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— Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark— Similarity of the marks concerned— Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities— Conditions (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.8(1)(b)) (see para.47)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13November 2014 (CaseR 353/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Karlslunde K/S and credentis AG. |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
| Dismisses the action; |
2. |
| Orders credentis AG to pay the costs. |