Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:56
Date: 2014-02-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 – Mega Brands v OHIM – Diset (MAGNEXT) (Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12) 1 (Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT – Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) [represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer (Case T-604/11) and T. Boddien, lawyer (Case T-292/12)] Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain) Re: Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/20114) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug. Operative part of the judgment The Court: Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment; Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11; Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder; Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12; Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11; Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12. ____________ 1 OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.