Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:814
Date: 2016-10-27
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: Portugal

summary the appellant submits that the General Court failed to apply settled case law in its analysis of the marks in issue with the result that it wrongly concluded that the marks are entirely dissimilar. First, having found the marks phonetically similar by virtue of the common element ‘so’, the General Court should have concluded that they were similar overall, at least to that extent. Its conclusion that they were dissimilar, despite the common phonetic element, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law on the nature and degree of similarity required for the application of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5). Secondly, having held the marks to be phonetically similar, the General Court should have concluded that they were also visually similar, for essentially similar reasons (and therefore a fortiori similar within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5)). Its conclusion that they were visually dissimilar, despite the common visual element ‘so’, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law when analyzing the visual impact of the ‘so’ element within the marks.  ____________ ____________ 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1