Order — ECLI:EU:C:2013:206
Date: 2013-03-21
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno v OHIM (Case C‑341/12 P) Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender — Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal 1. Appeals — 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 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Determination of the dominant component or components (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 35) Re: Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 May 2012 in Case T‑101/11 Mizuno v OHIM — GOLFINO (G) , whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Mizuno KK and Golfino AG — Figurative sign comprising the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender — Likelihood of confusion with a figurative mark comprising the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1). Operative part: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Mizuno KK is ordered to pay the costs.