Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:292
Date: 2012-06-13
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Cyprus

Summary of the Judgment 1. 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 marks HELLIM and HALLOUMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) 3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought before the Courts of the European Union — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Taking into account, by the General Court, of elements of law and fact which have not previously been raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) 4. Community trade mark — Community collective marks — Signs or indications which may serve to designate the geographical origin of goods and services — Exception — Restrictive interpretation — No presumption that the mark has distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 66(2)) 1. There is no likelihood of confusion, on the part of the general public of the European Union, between the word mark HELLIM, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark was sought for ‘Milk and milk products’ in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark HALLOUMI, previously registered as a Community collective mark for ‘Cheese’ in the same class. In the light of the fact that there are no phonetic or visual similarities between the signs at issue, notwithstanding the identity or similarity of the goods concerned, there cannot be any likelihood of confusion on the part of the target public since the existence of a conceptual similarity between the signs at issue is not, in the case of an earlier descriptive mark, sufficient to give rise to a presumption of such a likelihood of confusion. (see paras 22, 54) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 28) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 28, 29) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 49-52)