Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:46
Date: 2004-02-18
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks applied for
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — 
Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an identical or similar earlier 
mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with 
the earlier mark — Mark 'CONFORFLEX' and figurative marks including the term 
'flex' 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b» 
II-719 
SUMMARY — CASE T-10/03 
For the Spanish public, there is a likelihood 
of confusion between the word mark 
'CONFORFLEX', in respect of which reg­
istration was sought as a Community trade 
mark for 'bedroom furniture' falling within 
Class 20 of the Nice Agreement, and two 
figurative marks including the word 
element 'flex', registered earlier in Spain 
for all sorts of furniture, including bedroom 
furniture, falling within the same class. 
Whilst, from the point of view of the public 
concerned, the term 'flex' may indeed be 
regarded as evocative of a characteristic of 
the goods in question, namely flexibility, 
the earlier marks do not, on that account, 
have a highly distinctive character; given 
that the factors relevant to the assessment 
of whether there is a likelihood of con­
fusion are interdependent, the fact that the 
designated products are identical, coupled 
with the fact that the opposed signs are 
conceptually very similar, is sufficient for a 
finding that there is such a likelihood. 
(see paras 56, 58, 62) 
II - 720