Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:544
Date: 2008-12-02
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks applied for;Similarity between marks
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) 1. Throughout the territory of the Community, for a public with a relatively high level of attention, there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the word sign Barbara Becker, for which registration as a Community trade mark was sought in respect of goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement, and the Community word mark BECKER, registered earlier in respect of goods in the same class. The identical or similar nature of the goods covered by the marks at issue is not contested, and the mark applied for, Barbara Becker, and the mark BECKER have visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities. Even if the goods in question were intended for a public with a relatively high level of attention, that public might believe that those goods come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings. (see paras 25-26, 31, 40) 2. Two marks are similar when, from the point of view of the relevant public, they are at least partially identical as regards one or more relevant aspects. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, as far as concerns the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, inter alia, their distinctive and dominant components. Where one of the two words which alone constitute a word mark is identical, both visually and phonetically, to the single word which constitutes an earlier word mark, and where those words, taken together or in isolation, have no conceptual meaning for the public concerned, the marks at issue, each considered as a whole, are normally to be regarded as similar. (see paras 28-30) 3. When a composite mark consists of one component juxtaposed to another trade mark, that latter mark, even where it is not the dominant component in the composite mark, may still have an independent distinctive role in the composite mark. In such a case, the composite mark and the other mark can be regarded as similar. (see para. 37) 4. Where a word mark consists of two components, one of which is the single component comprising another word mark, it is not necessary that the common component of the conflicting marks is the dominant component in the overall impression created by the composite mark to find a likelihood of confusion. If such a condition were imposed, even though the common component has an independent distinctive role in the composite mark, the owner of the earlier mark would be deprived of the exclusive right conferred by that mark. (see para. 41)