Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:372
Date: 2015-06-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 10 June 2015 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)) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark AGRI.CAPITAL — Word marks AgriCapital and AGRICAPITAL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 22-24, 74) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 26) 3. For the average EU consumer, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark between the word sign AGRI.CAPITAL, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘real estate management and brokerage services’, ‘building promoter services’ and ‘development of usage concepts services’ in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement, and the earlier Community word marks AgriCapital and AGRICAPITAL in respect of financial services within the same Class, since the services covered by the earlier marks are not similar to the services covered by the trade mark applied for. That lack of similarity cannot be offset for the purposes of the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, by similarity, even of a high degree, between the marks at issue. (see paras 27, 28, 70, 75, 76) 4. Goods or services are complementary where there is a close connection between them, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other in such a way that consumers may think that the responsibility for the production of those goods or provision of those services lies with the same undertaking. That implies that complementary goods or services can be used together, which presupposes that they are intended for the same public. (see paras 58, 59)