Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:1001
Date: 2014-11-27
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(d)) (see para. 26) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33) 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 mark Carrera and word marks CARRERA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) (see paras 37-48) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 51-53, 62) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Proof to be adduced by proprietor — Genuine future risk of undue profit or damage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 67) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 306/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG and Mr Kurt Hesse. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.