Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2013:5
Date: 2013-01-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 January 2013 — Kokomarina v OHIM — Euro Shoe Group (interdit de me gronder IDMG) (Case T‑568/11) Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark interdit de me gronder IDMG — Earlier Benelux word mark DMG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark disputed for the first time before the General Court) 1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Claim appearing in the application and seeking to demonstrate genuine use of the earlier mark — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65(2) and 76) (see paras 15-20) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-27, 48) 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 — Figurative mark interdit de me gronder IDMG and word mark DMG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30, 36, 47, 50) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 53) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 July 2011 (Case R 1814/2010‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Shoe Unie and Kokomarina. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Kokomarina to pay the costs.