Order — ECLI:EU:C:2014:57
Date: 2014-01-30
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible

Summary — Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 30 January 2014 1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) 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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 1. In accordance with Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, appeals must be limited to questions of law. The General Court has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where the facts or evidence are distorted, constitute points of law subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal. The assessment of the similarities between the signs in question, having regard to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, is of a factual nature and, save where the evidence and facts are distorted, is not subject to review by the Court of Justice. (see paras 37, 38) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 39) 3. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark must, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant elements. In particular, the Court has held that the assessment of the similarity between two marks cannot be confined to taking account of only one component of a complex mark and comparing it with another mark, but that a comparison must be carried out wherein each of the marks in question is examined as a whole. It is true that, in certain circumstances, the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a complex mark may be dominated by one or more of its components, such that, if all of the other components of the mark are negligible, the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on basis of the dominant element. However, it cannot be deduced from that case-law concerning exceptional situations that only the distinctive element of a mark composed of a descriptive element and a distinctive element is decisive when assessing whether there is a likelihood of confusion. (see paras 42-44)