Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 December 2017.N & C Franchise Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses — Earlier international word mark oio — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).Case T-792/16.

Judgment // 14/12/2017 // 2 min read
bookmark

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (OJO sunglasses)

(Case T‑792/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses — Earlier international word mark oio — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

  1. 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 17-19, 57)

  1. 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—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 para. 22)

  1. 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 mark OJO sunglasses and word mark oio

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

(see paras 25, 26, 34, 36, 41-43, 47, 56, 62, 63, 67-71)

  1. 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 28, 29)

  1. 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark

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

(see para. 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 (Case R 32/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Eschenbach Optik and N & C Franchise.

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the action;

  2. Orders N & C Franchise Ltd to pay the costs.

Trade marks