Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2017.Batmore Capital Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative trade mark POCKETBOOK — Earlier national figurative marks POCKET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.Case T-596/15.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2017 — Batmore Capita v EUIPO — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)

(Case T‑596/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative trade mark POCKETBOOK — Earlier national figurative marks POCKET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Direction issued to the Office—Precluded

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6))

(see para. 24)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 27-30, 82)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 paras 37, 43, 45)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Composite mark

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 55, 56)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see para. 66)

6. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 marks POCKETBOOK and POCKET

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 69, 70, 72-77, 87)

7. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 84)

8. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009—Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

(see para. 85)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2015 (Case R 1952/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Univers Poche and Batmore Capital.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Batmore Capital Ltd to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Univers Poche before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).