Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4February 2016— Emsibeth v OHIM
(Case C‑251/15 P)(1)
Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative mark Nael — Opposition by the proprietor of prior Community word mark Mc Neal — Refusal of registration — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Determination of the relevant public — Assessment of the comparison of the goods, the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion)
1.Appeal— Grounds— Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence— Inadmissibility— Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence— Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 28-30, 37)
2.Appeal— Grounds— Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court— Mistaken assessment of the facts— Inadmissibility— Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 34)
3.Appeal— Grounds— Error of law— Failure to take account of all the relevant factors for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No207/2009— Admissibility (Art. 256 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 44)
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— Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 46)
Operative part
1. |
| The appeal is dismissed. |
2. |
| Emsibeth SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |
1 – OJ C311, 21.9.2015.