Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:93
Date: 2016-02-24
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED) (Case T‑816/14) Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Misuse of power — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see para. 33) 2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — No right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 34) 3. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — No obligation on OHIM to accept points put forward by a party which have not been challenged by the other party (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 39) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43-45) 5. 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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-54) 6. 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 REAL HAND COOKED and real QUALITY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 63-66, 72-77, 80-83, 87) 7. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 91, 92) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 (Case R 842/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto Group Ltd. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.