Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:34
Date: 2014-01-28
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2014 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA) (Case T‑216/11) Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark IMPERIA — Earlier Community figurative mark IMPERIAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 39) 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 — Figurative marks IMPERIA and IMPERIAL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 54, 55) 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 40, 45) 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. 43) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2011 (Case R 1036/2010‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sopralex & Vosmarques SA and Progust, SL. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Progust, SL to pay the costs.